Justice Yashwant Varma, Allahabad High Court
"Your Conduct Says A Lot": Supreme Court Questions Delay In Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea, Reserves Judgment
|The Court said Justice Varma’s conduct raised serious doubts, observing that he appeared to have waited for a favourable finding before approaching the Court, which undermined the credibility of his challenge.
The Supreme Court today reserved judgment in Justice Yashwant Varma’s petition challenging the in-house committee report and the recommendation of former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for initiation of removal proceedings against him.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih remarked, “Your conduct does not inspire confidence. Your conduct says a lot. You were waiting for a favourable finding and once you found it to be palpable, you came here.”
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, and Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for Justice Varma.
Sibal submitted that Justice Varma did not challenge the in-house procedure as a fact-finding mechanism, nor the CJI’s power to direct that judicial work not be assigned to a judge. However, he argued that the in-house mechanism could not constitutionally form the basis for recommending removal. “The in-house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, if, then it is violative of vires of Article 124,” he said.
He submitted that the in-house process was an advisory one without binding legal authority, formulated under administrative powers without obligation to follow codified rules of evidence. “Such an advisory for initiation of proceedings will be the death knell,” he said.
Justice Datta asked, “So as per Article 124 and Judges Enquiry Act are the only ones for removing a judge. That's all you say?” He noted the process had been affirmed by the Court in three judgments. “What relief can we grant if we are with you?” he asked. Sibal responded, “Declare the recommendation non est.” Justice Datta replied, “What happens then? Proceedings will go.” Sibal answered, “That's alright.”
Justice Datta directed Sibal to read provisions of the Judges Protection Act, noting, “This Section 3(2) of the Act is the complete answer to your submission.” When Sibal submitted that the delay was due to reputational harm caused by the public release of the tape, Justice Datta asked, “But as per you, it is a constitutional issue... is it not?”
On whether the Centre could have acted, Justice Datta remarked, “If under law Centre is empowered to remove a judge, they can. But there is no such law. If they make the law, we will test that.”
Sibal stated that he would return better prepared to address these issues. Justice Masih pointed out that the judgment in Ravichandran Iyer still stood. Justice Datta noted, “In-house process was placed in 1999 for seeing what action can be taken. Chief Justice is not a post office and he also has some duties towards the nation.”
When Sibal argued that his client had been publicly held guilty due to the release of the report, Justice Datta stated, “This committee's report is preliminary and it will not affect the future proceedings.”
Justice Datta further observed, “If you are relying on some reports saying I am found guilty, it was available earlier. This happened after tapes were released.”
When Sibal argued that fundamental rights were affected, Justice Datta responded, “You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India... When you know in-house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only Parliament can do it, you should have come then and there.”
Sibal reiterated that the in-house procedure lacked procedural safeguards and was advisory in nature, contrasting it with the more robust Judges Enquiry Act. He submitted, “In judges enquiry, there is a procedure for removal and in the in-house, there is no such procedure. There is an anomaly.”
Justice Datta asked, “Is Parliament bound by in-house procedure? The CJI can recommend initiation of proceedings, but it is Parliament’s prerogative to accept or reject it.”
When Sibal read out the letter sent by the then Chief Justice to the President, Justice Datta asked, “What was unlawful here? He has exactly stuck to the point and followed the in-house procedure.”
Justice Datta then asked Advocate Mathews Nedumpara how he had accessed the confidential committee report. When he stated that it was available on LiveLaw, Justice Datta said, “We will issue notice to LiveLaw. We will ask you to file an affidavit on how you got the report.”
Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh, intervening, clarified to the Court that “LiveLaw has not reported it”, disputing Mr. Nedumpara’s claim.
Sibal reiterated that his client had been denied an opportunity to be properly heard. Rohatgi referred to the Soumitra Sen case, stating that the judge had been given a hearing.
Justice Datta then noted that Nedumpara had made several unsupported claims, stating, “If you make pleadings without supporting documents, you do it at your own risk. You have made false statements.”
Having heard all parties, the Court reserved its judgment in the matter.
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.”
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)