Why did Justice Varma submit to in-house inquiry if it was contrary to Constitution, Supreme Court asks
The query came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal complained that the action taken by the Supreme Court at the time, including release of sensitive visual and audio materials showing ‘burnt currency’, “convicted” Justice Varma in the public eye
by Krishnadas Rajagopal · The HinduThe Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) questioned High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma’s choice to submit to an in-house inquiry procedure into an allegation of ‘burnt cash’ found at his official residential premises in Delhi, despite finding the procedure to be “completely contrary to the Constitutional scheme”.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih asked whether he was at the time looking for a favourable outcome.
The query came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal complained that the action taken by the Supreme Court at the time, including release of sensitive visual and audio materials showing ‘burnt currency’, “convicted” Justice Varma in the public eye.
“There was a public furore, media interactions named the judge, accusations were levelled against the judge and the findings of the inquiry committee found its way into the public domain. He was convicted in the public eye from day one,” Mr. Sibal argued.
Mr. Sibal said the process of removal of a judge was covered under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The inquiry had to be done under the Judges Inquiry Act. The in-house procedure was meant to “enhance” the moral vigour of the judiciary and depicted zero tolerance to judicial misconduct.
‘Violation of Article 121’
The senior counsel said the outing of sensitive material regarding a sitting High Court judge and very public discussions on his conduct violated the bar under Article 121 of the Constitution.
“Article 121 restricts discussions even in the Parliament on a sitting judge unless there is evidence of proven misconduct against him… Here, he was already ‘convicted’ in the public eye. The in-house inquiry procedure was devised to enhance the moral authority of the judiciary. The conduct of the in-house inquiry and its report, now in the public domain, hardly meet that objective,” Mr. Sibal argued.
Mr. Sibal challenged the inquiry committee’s finding of misbehaviour against Justice Varma.
“If cash is found in an outhouse, what is the behaviour of the judge to do with it… There is no ‘behaviour’ or ‘misbehaviour’ involved. They have to prove the cash belonged to him. They never found that… There could never have been a recommendation for my [read Justice Varma’s] removal,” Mr. Sibal argued.
‘Political overtones’
The counsel said the issue of ‘removal’ of the judge has taken on political overtones.
“But removal is also a political procedure,” Justice Datta observed.
“Yes, inside the Parliament, not outside,” Mr. Sibal responded.
“You could have raised these points immediately, without submitting to the committee’s jurisdiction… why did you not?” Justice Datta asked.
Mr. Sibal contended that the decision of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) in May to forward the committee report and recommendation for the removal of Justice Varma was “illegal”.
“Why do you think sending it to the President, who is the appointing authority of the judge, illegal? And what is wrong in sending it to the Prime Minister? He is the leader of the Council of Ministers. His advice is taken at the time of appointment of judges. Sending it to the President or the Prime Minister does not mean the Chief Justice is trying to impress or persuade the House to accept his point of view,” Justice Datta responded.
The court listed the case on July 30, directing Mr. Sibal to place the inquiry committee’s report on record.