Justice Yashwant Varma, Allahabad High Court
CJI Recuses From Hearing Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Challenging In-House Inquiry, Bench To Be Constituted
|CJI Gavai said he was part of the conversation on Justice Yashwant Varma, and will constitute a separate Bench to hear the plea.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal today mentioned the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house inquiry proceedings and the recommendation for his removal before the Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Sibal submitted, “We have filed the petition on behalf of the Allahabad High Court Judge, in respect of the recommendation that was made by the Chief Justice for his removal, we’ve raised some constitutional issues. I request Your Lordships to list this as early as possible. Will have to constitute a Bench on this.”
CJI Gavai responded, “I think that it may not be proper for me to pick up that matter because I was part of the conversation.”
Sibal replied, “Very well. It’s for Your Lordships to decide.”
The Chief Justice then said, “We’ll just take a call and constitute a Bench.”
Justice Yashwant Varma has moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the findings of an in-house committee and the recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, for initiating proceedings for his removal. The proceedings stem from the alleged recovery of charred high-denomination currency notes at his official residence in Delhi after a fire incident in March 2025.
Justice Varma, in his petition, has contended that he was not present in Delhi at the time of the fire and had no knowledge of any currency being stored there. He states that officials of the Delhi Fire Services and Delhi Police who discovered the burnt cash neither seized it nor made any formal record of it. The petition alleges that the in-house inquiry was triggered by presumptive queries in the absence of a formal complaint and that the process violated the principles of natural justice and due process.
He asserts that the committee denied him a hearing, examined witnesses in his absence, paraphrased their statements rather than sharing video recordings, and reversed the burden of proof. He argues that the in-house procedure, in this case, created an extra-constitutional mechanism that bypassed the exclusive role of Parliament under Articles 124 and 218 in the removal of judges.
Justice Varma has sought a declaration that the in-house procedure is inapplicable to proceedings of this nature and has prayed for the report of the committee and the removal recommendation dated 8 May 2025 to be declared unconstitutional and void. He has also sought to set aside the final report dated 5 May 2025 and all subsequent actions based on it.
Cause Title: XXX v. Union of India (Diary No. 38664/2025)