The Supreme Court will take up on Monday Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma’s petition challenging an in-house inquiry committee report that indicted him for recovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi during a fire incident on March 14 when he was away in Madhya Pradesh.Justice Varma’s petition is listed before a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih on July 28, sources said.Chief Justice of India BR Gavai had on July 23 said he will constitute a Bench to hear Justice Varma’s petition seeking a declaration that the May 8 recommendation by the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the President and the Prime Minister for initiating the process for his removal was “unconstitutional”. The recommendation followed his indictment by an in-house committee.He has contended that Justice Khanna’s recommendation was in breach of the established constitutional mechanism envisaged under Article 124 read with Article 218 of the Constitution of India.” He has also urged the top court to quash and set aside all consequential actions taken pursuant to the in-house committee’s final report dated May 3, 2025.Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Friday said the proceedings to remove Justice Varma would take place in the Lok Sabha.However, maintaining that the essential mandate of the committee was to discover the truth as to when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse; how much cash was placed in the outhouse; if the cash/currency genuine or not; the cause of the fire; and if he was in any manner responsible for the “removal” of “remnants of currency” on March 15, 2025, Justice Varma assailed the in-house inquiry for reversing the burden of proof, requiring him to investigate and disprove the charges levelled against him.“The mere discovery of cash provides no conclusive resolution. 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,” Justice Varma submitted.Noting that the final report provided no answers to these pivotal questions, he questioned its substantive findings for being “untenable, based on unjustified inferences, not evidence.”He also faulted the committee for violating principles of natural justice as it failed to notify him of the procedure devised by it and there was no mechanism for him to request or contribute inputs on evidence to be collected. There was lack of notice of charges or preliminary findings, denial of a personal hearing and selective disclosure of evidence, he contended.Questioning the hurry on the part of the then CJI Khanna in endorsing the committee’s findings and conclusions on the same day, he pointed out that it was followed by a communication advising him to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an unduly restricted timeline (by 7 pm on May 6, 2025), failing which an action to initiate his “removal” would be initiated. “The Petitioner was denied any opportunity for a personal hearing, contrary to established precedents in similar cases,” he submitted.Justice Varma contended that it was contrary to past practice and convention in implementation of the in-house procedure that envisaged a personal hearing before the CJI and other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court before any advice was rendered to the judge concerned based upon the in-house committee report.Raising questions over the in-house committee, he posed several questions of law for the consideration of the top court. Justice Varma urged the court to examine if the Constitution conceived, sanctioned, or can be interpreted as empowering the judicial institution to play any role in initiating proceedings for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court or of a high court. He also wanted the top court to consider if initiation of proceedings for removal of a high court judge at the behest of the judicial institution violated the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution.
Cash at judge’s house: SC to take up Justice Yashwant Varma’s petition on Monday
