Introduction

In March 2025, a fire at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma in Delhi triggered a nationwide judicial controversy. Firefighters discovered large bundles of cash—reportedly amounting to as much as ₹15 crore, according to media reports. The incident quickly became a subject of public and institutional scrutiny.

On March 22, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued a press release announcing that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had constituted a three-member committee to investigate the allegations. It also directed the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma. This was followed by an internal "in-house" judicial inquiry, and eventually, a referral to Parliament for possible impeachment proceedings.

This chain of events raises complex questions regarding judicial accountability, the limitations of confidential inquiries, the role of media, and the constitutional mechanisms for removing a sitting judge.

Judicial Accountability: Frameworks and Challenges

The Indian Constitution provides significant protections to judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Articles 124 and 217 ensure that judges can only be removed by a rigorous process involving both Houses of Parliament, while Article 212 restricts judicial decisions from being questioned in courts of law.

Impeachment Mechanism

• Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) lay down the removal process for Supreme Court and High Court judges.

• The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 outlines the procedure, requiring a motion in either House of Parliament to be passed by a special majority—i.e., a majority of the total membership and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting.

Despite the framework, judicial removals are exceedingly rare in India. Only five impeachment motions have ever been initiated, and none have resulted in the actual removal of a sitting judge.

Beyond Impeachment: The 'In-House' Mechanism

In C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995), the Supreme Court acknowledged the need for mechanisms to address misconduct that falls short of "proved misbehaviour" under Article 124(4). The Court recognized a gap between unethical behavior and impeachable offenses.

To address this:

• A five-judge committee in 1997 proposed an in-house inquiry procedure.

• Adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 via a full-court resolution, the process allows the judiciary to internally examine and take remedial action where appropriate.

• In 2014, the mechanism was refined by Justices J.S. Khehar and Arun Mishra into a seven-step framework, enhancing transparency and procedural clarity—particularly after a sexual harassment complaint was filed against a High Court judge.

Notable Removal Proceedings Against Indian Judges

Below is a summary of the five impeachment motions initiated in Indian constitutional history:

1. Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) – Supreme Court

   • Allegation: Financial irregularities and misconduct during tenure as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court.

   • Outcome: Motion failed in the Lok Sabha due to lack of required two-thirds vote.

   • Significance: First-ever impeachment motion against a judge in India.
     
     

2. Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) – Calcutta High Court

   • Allegation: Misappropriation of public funds as a court-appointed receiver.

   • Outcome: Rajya Sabha passed the motion; Sen resigned before the Lok Sabha could act.

   • Significance: First judge to be impeached by a House of Parliament.
     
     

3. Justice J.B. Pardiwala (2015) – Gujarat High Court

   • Allegation: Made controversial remarks about the reservation system.

   • Outcome: Impeachment notice submitted but withdrawn; remarks were expunged.

   • Significance: Highlights sensitivity of judicial comments in constitutional matters.
     
     

4. Justice S.K. Gangele (2015) – Madhya Pradesh High Court

   • Allegation: Accused of sexual harassment by a former District Judge.

   • Outcome: Judicial Inquiry Committee found insufficient evidence; motion dropped.

   • Significance: One of the few cases to undergo full inquiry.
     
     

5. Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy (2017) – Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court

   • Allegation: Intimidation and caste-based abuse of a Dalit junior civil judge.

   • Outcome: Impeachment notice submitted; no formal proceedings initiated.

   • Significance: Illustrates the constitutional process to address abuse of power.

The In-House Inquiry into Justice Yashwant Varma

Following the fire incident on March 14–15, the in-house mechanism was promptly activated. On March 15, Delhi High Court Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna informed the CJI about the discovery of cash. By March 21, he submitted a preliminary report recommending a deeper probe.

Justice Varma was formally notified of the allegations and asked to submit a written explanation by March 22.

Constitution of the Inquiry Panel

On March 22, the Supreme Court constituted a three-judge inquiry committee under the in-house procedure, comprising:

• Chief Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

• Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh High Court)

• Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court)

Simultaneously, the Delhi High Court Collegium proposed Justice Varma’s transfer to his parent court in Allahabad, which was officially notified on March 28.

Inquiry Process and Findings

Over the next ten days, the panel:

• Examined 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma and his daughter.

• Reviewed photographs and videos from the scene.

• Operated under principles of natural justice, but did not allow cross-examination or presence of legal counsel.

In May, the committee submitted a 64-page confidential report, concluding:

• The presence of cash in a secure area implied "implied responsibility".

• The misconduct was "serious enough" to warrant removal proceedings.

However, per protocol, the panel lacked power to sanction Justice Varma. The report was forwarded to the CJI, who then shared it with the President and Prime Minister after offering Justice Varma an opportunity to resign—thus initiating impeachment proceedings under the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Justice Varma case highlights the tension between judicial independence and accountability in India. While constitutional safeguards are essential for preserving judicial freedom, they also create procedural hurdles in cases of suspected misconduct.

The in-house inquiry mechanism has proven valuable for swift internal review, but its non-adversarial, confidential nature raises questions about transparency and due process. Nonetheless, it reflects the judiciary’s willingness to examine its own ranks when necessary.

As Parliament now deliberates whether to remove a judge—an event rare in Indian history—the credibility of institutional mechanisms will be under intense public scrutiny. The case stands as a landmark moment in the ongoing effort to ensure that India’s judiciary remains both independent and accountable.