In-House Procedure An Extra-Constitutional Mechanism, Usurps Parliamentary Authority: Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea Before Supreme Court

Justice Yashwant Varma has approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the in-house procedure adopted against him, under the alleged discovery of charred currency notes at his official residence earlier this year. The petition seeks to quash the report of the in-house committee and the subsequent recommendation by then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, for initiating proceedings for his removal.

In the petition, he asserts that he was not present in Delhi when the fire occurred and had no knowledge of any currency being kept there. It sates, “It appears that while attending to/extinguishing the fire, officials of the Delhi Fire Services and Delhi Police discovered the presence of burnt currency/cash… They did not seize the alleged cash or prepare a panchnama or otherwise memorialize their discovery in any manner known to law.”

It is contended that no complaint was received by any authority from either the Delhi Fire Services or the Delhi Police. The in-house inquiry, according to him, was triggered by “presumptive queries raised on 21.03.2025” without any formal complaint.

Calling the process constitutionally impermissible, he contends, “The In-House Procedure, as it has been applied in the present case, is unconstitutional. It creates an extra-constitutional mechanism that derogates from the mandatory framework under Articles 124 and 218.” It further states, “It bypasses the role of Parliament in the removal of a judge, and creates a parallel process by which a finding of culpability is returned by a Committee without jurisdiction.”

It has been contended that the inquiry committee proceeded without authority of law, and acted beyond its limited advisory capacity. According to the petition, the committee failed to determine core facts. It raises the following questions:

“a. When, how and by whom was the cash placed in the

outhouse?

b. How much cash was placed in the outhouse?

c. Was the cash/currency genuine or not?

d. What was the cause of the fire?

e. Whether the Petitioner was in any manner responsible for the “removal” of “remnants of currency” on 15.03.2025?”

It is asserted, “It remains essential to determine whose cash and how much was discovered. These aspects bear directly on the severity of the allegations, and equally, on the potential for orchestrated scandal; added to by the cause of the fire, whether intentional or accidental, and the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged “removal” of the currency. The Final Report dated 03.05.2025 provides no answers to these pivotal questions.”

Justice Varma asserts that the procedure adopted violated the principles of natural justice. The petition states, “The Committee failed to notify the Petitioner of its devised procedure, denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence to be collected, examined witnesses in his absence and provided him with paraphrased statements instead of video recordings… denied opportunities of personal hearing… impermissibly reversed the burden of proof…”

The plea alleges that on 6 May 2025, he was advised to resign or opt for voluntary retirement by 7 PM that day, failing which a recommendation would be sent for his removal. He was, however, not given a personal hearing.

Justice Varma has therefore prayed for a declaration that the in-house procedure is “inapplicable to proceedings of the present nature”, and that the recommendation of the then Chief Justice of India dated May 8, 2025, be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires. He has also sought a direction to quash the Final Report dated May 5, 2025 and all consequential actions arising from it.

The in-house committee, comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice GS Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, had found that high-denomination currency bundles were indeed recovered in burnt condition from Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence after a fire in March 2025. The committee rejected Justice Varma’s explanation and found no plausible rebuttal to the consistent accounts given by fire and police officials. It concluded that his denial lacked evidentiary support and that the incident warranted further action.

In May, the Supreme Court administration had rejected a plea seeking a report of the committee, which had indicted Justice Yashwant Varma, under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The matter is now before the Supreme Court, even as Parliament prepares to take up the impeachment motion during the upcoming monsoon session.

Cause Title: XXX v. Union of India (Diary No. 38664/2025)