Justice Yashwant Varma, Allahabad High Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma’s Petition, Says His Conduct Does Not Inspire Confidence
|The Court said it would tread cautiously as any observation could impact future proceedings and held that Justice Yashwant Varma’s conduct did not inspire confidence
The Supreme Court today dismissed the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house procedure and its outcome, including the recommendation forwarded by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. The Court also dismissed a connected petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih began pronouncing judgment by noting that the Court had exercised restraint while examining the challenge. Justice Datta said, “…any observation made by us would affect a level playing field in any future proceedings that he might face. Therefore, we would tread the path cautiously and deal with such contentions as necessary.”
The Court framed six questions for consideration. On the threshold question of maintainability, the Court held that the petitioner’s conduct disentitled him to relief. “The first is whether the writ petition should be entertained at all. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, which does not inspire confidence, this writ petition should not be entertained,” Justice Datta remarked.
On the substantive challenge to the in-house procedure, particularly paragraph 5 thereof, the Bench found no constitutional infirmity. It observed, “The challenge on the ground that it violates Articles 214 and 217 of the Constitution is without merit.”
The allegation that the in-house committee or the Chief Justice of India deviated from the prescribed procedure was also rejected. The Court recorded that, “The allegation that the Chief Justice of India or the Committee acted in deviation from the prescribed procedure is incorrect. The process was meticulously followed, except for the non-uploading of videos, which was not raised as a grievance.”
Justice Datta further clarified that the forwarding of the committee’s report to the President by the Chief Justice of India was consistent with the established framework. He said, “It is not unconstitutional for the Chief Justice of India to forward the report to the President.”
Arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, particularly regarding denial of personal hearing, were also found untenable. The Bench noted, “The contention that the petitioner was not heard holds no weight, as personal hearing is not part of the procedure and was not required.”
With these findings, the Court dismissed the petition.
The petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking a criminal investigation into Justice Varma’s conduct was also rejected.
CJI Gavai on July 23, 2025, recused himself from hearing the challenge filed by Justice Yashwant Varma against the in-house inquiry and the recommendation for his removal, stating, “I was part of the conversation.” He assured that a separate Bench will be constituted.
The matter was taken up after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal sought urgent listing, stating, “We’ve filed a petition on behalf of the Allahabad High Court Judge... we’ve raised some constitutional issues.” The CJI responded that it would not be appropriate for him to hear it and said, “We’ll take a call and constitute a Bench.”
On July 28, the Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih posed several pointed questions during the hearing. Justice Datta asked, “Why did you appear before the committee? You are a constitutional authority, you can’t say you don’t know… If you succeed in the first two prayers, we didn’t need to look into other things.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted, “All that has happened is completely contrary to the Constitution… findings by public discussing conduct of judge is all prohibited.”
On July 30, the Court had reserved its judgment in the matter. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued, “This so-called in-house procedure is not backed by statute or the Constitution... What is the source of power?” Justice Datta questioned the delay in challenging the report, observing, “You wait for the inquiry to be over. You wait for the finding. Then you challenge it. That shows something,” and added, “This is not a decision. This is a recommendation. There is a difference.” The Court also warned Advocate Mathews Nedumpara against misleading it by accessing a confidential report: “We will be compelled to take action if you have misled the Court."
Justice Varma has approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the findings of the in-house committee and the recommendation made by then CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna following the alleged recovery of charred high-denomination notes from his official residence in March 2025.
In his petition, Justice Varma contends that he was not present in Delhi during the fire and had no knowledge of any cash. He alleges that the inquiry process violated natural justice, denied him a hearing, reversed the burden of proof, and operated without a formal complaint. He argues that such proceedings bypass Parliament’s role under Articles 124 and 218.
He has sought a declaration that the in-house procedure is inapplicable in such cases and prayed for the committee’s report and the 8 May 2025 recommendation to be declared unconstitutional and void.
Cause Title: XXX v. Union of India (Diary No. 38664/2025)