Justice Varma’s writ is an occasion for the judiciary to hold mirror to what it has become

JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA, facing the threat of impeachment, has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the report of an in-house inquiry that indicted him in connection with the alleged recovery of burnt Indian currency notes from an outhouse at his official residence in Delhi on the night of March 14 and 15, 2025. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear his petition next week.

Justice Varma’s petition raises several objections to the in-house inquiry procedure and its findings:

Firstly, Justice Varma contends that the in-house procedure, established by the Supreme Court in 1999, exceeds its intended scope of self-regulation and fact-finding by recommending the removal of judges. He argues that it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism that undermines Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which vest the power to remove High Court judges exclusively in Parliament through a special majority under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Secondly, he submits that the in-house procedure lacks the procedural safeguards provided by the 1968 Act, such as formal charges, cross-examination, and proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Thirdly, Justice Varma argues that the Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) lacks constitutional authority to exercise superintendence or disciplinary control over High Court judges, and the in-house procedure cannot override their constitutionally protected tenure.

Fourthly, he contends that the in-house procedure was improperly invoked without a formal complaint, based solely on presumptive queries about burnt currency found in the outhouse. He argues that the procedure is not designed for such circumstances.

Fifthly, Justice Varma alleges that the Supreme Court’s press release on March 22, disclosed unverified allegations and triggered a media trial that caused irreparable harm to his reputation.

Sixthly, he claims the three-member committee failed to notify him of its procedures, denied him opportunities to respond to evidence, examined witnesses in his absence, and provided paraphrased statements instead of video recordings. He further alleges that the committee selectively disclosed incriminating material, ignored exculpatory evidence (e.g., CCTV footage), reversed the burden of proof without notice, and denied him a personal hearing, violating Article 14’s principles of reasonableness and fairness.

Seventhly, Justice Varma argues that the committee’s mandate was confined to non-contentious issues, such as the presence of cash and the location of the outhouse. It failed to address critical questions: When, how, and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse? How much cash was involved, and was it genuine? What caused the fire? Was he responsible for the alleged removal of currency remnants on March 15, 2025?

Eighthly, he contends that the committee’s final report, which was finalised on May 3 relied on inferences rather than evidence, concluding that the allegations were “proved” and warranted removal proceedings. The report failed to clarify the cash’s ownership, quantity, authenticity, or the fire’s cause.