Justice Yashwant Varma’s Challenge to Inquiry Rejected by Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who had challenged the findings of an internal inquiry conducted after unaccounted cash was discovered at his official residence. The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, upheld the report submitted by a three-judge inquiry committee set up by the Chief Justice of India earlier this year.

The case began in March 2025, when a fire broke out in the storeroom of Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. Fire and police personnel who responded to the emergency reportedly found large bundles of currency notes inside the premises. Though initial reports about the discovery were circulated, the Delhi Fire Service later issued a statement retracting the information.

Following the incident, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna ordered a preliminary review and then constituted a full internal inquiry to examine the matter. The panel, made up of three senior judges, interviewed over 50 witnesses and examined video footage, photographs, and documents related to the incident. After more than a month of investigation, the committee submitted a detailed report to the Chief Justice, which reportedly concluded that large sums of cash were indeed stored at Justice Varma’s residence and that the explanation provided by the judge was not satisfactory.

Based on the findings, the Chief Justice forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister of India, recommending Justice Varma’s removal from office. Around the same time, the Supreme Court Collegium also recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court, which was subsequently approved.

Justice Varma later approached the Supreme Court challenging the inquiry, questioning both its procedure and its legal basis. In his petition, he argued that the internal mechanism lacked transparency and violated principles of natural justice. However, the court held that the process followed was in line with the established in-house procedure meant to deal with complaints against judges. The bench noted that Justice Varma had participated in the inquiry and had responded to the allegations during the proceedings, which weakened his claim that the process was flawed.

The case attracted public and media attention not only because of the serious nature of the allegations but also due to the involvement of a sitting High Court judge. As of now, the matter may proceed toward a formal recommendation for Justice Varma’s removal, which requires Presidential assent under constitutional provisions. The ruling also sets a precedent on the role and authority of internal judicial inquiries in cases involving higher judiciary members.

Justice Varma has not issued any public statement following the Supreme Court’s ruling.