New Delhi: Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Tuesday announced the formation of a three-member panel to investigate allegations against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, following the discovery of a large amount of burned and partially burned cash at his residence earlier this year.
The inquiry panel will comprise Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Maninder Mohan, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya.
The panel’s mandate will be to examine the circumstances surrounding the cash recovery and evaluate the allegations of misconduct against Justice Varma.
Blaze and Cash Recovery Incident
The controversy stems from a March 2025 incident when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s residence. Firefighters, after extinguishing the blaze, reportedly found a substantial amount of charred and partially burnt currency notes at the premises. The discovery prompted questions about the source of the money and its possible link to judicial impropriety.
Following the incident, on March 21, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna sought a written response from Justice Varma regarding the allegations. Justice Varma submitted his reply the next day, dismissing the accusations as baseless.
SC Appointed In-House Probe and Findings
Soon after receiving Justice Varma’s response, the CJI constituted a three-member in-house committee to probe the matter. The committee conducted its inquiry and submitted a detailed report to the Supreme Court.
The report, which included photographs and video evidence from the scene, concluded that Justice Varma was guilty of misconduct.
In line with established judicial protocols, the Supreme Court uploaded the report on its official website. The findings drew considerable attention within legal and political circles, given the seriousness of the allegations against a sitting high court judge.
Varma’s Legal Challenge and SC’s Response
Justice Varma, identified only as “XXX” in legal proceedings, moved the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the in-house panel’s report. In his petition, titled XXX vs. The Union of India, he sought to nullify the findings, alleging procedural lapses and questioning the authority under which the inquiry was conducted.
However, on July 30, the apex court dismissed his plea. The bench firmly upheld the authority of the Chief Justice of India to act in matters of judicial misconduct, asserting that the CJI was not merely a “post office” forwarding complaints but had constitutional duties to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court observed that Justice Varma’s conduct “did not inspire confidence” and questioned his approach to the case.
The court asked why he had participated in the inquiry proceedings if he believed the process was flawed and why he had not approached the Supreme Court earlier.
The bench reminded him that challenging the committee’s formation or its jurisdiction should have been his first step, rather than engaging in the process and only contesting the outcome later.
Parliament’s Involvement and Next Steps
With the in-house inquiry complete and its findings public, the matter has now moved to Parliament under the provisions dealing with the removal of judges for proven misbehavior or incapacity.
The Speaker’s announcement of the three-member investigative panel is part of the constitutional process for initiating impeachment proceedings, should the evidence warrant it.
The committee, once it completes its investigation, will submit its report to the Speaker. If the findings support the allegations, the next stage would involve debate and voting in both Houses of Parliament, requiring a two-thirds majority for removal.
Judicial Accountability and Public Trust
This case marks one of the rare instances where a sitting high court judge faces both an in-house judicial inquiry and a parliamentary probe.
Legal experts note that while the judiciary has its own mechanisms for addressing misconduct, parliamentary oversight ensures that the process remains transparent and accountable.
The Supreme Court’s recent remarks also underline the evolving interpretation of the CJI’s powers in safeguarding judicial credibility.
By emphasizing that the Chief Justice has a proactive duty in such cases, the court reaffirmed the principle that judicial office carries not only privileges but also the highest ethical responsibilities.
Broader Implications
The controversy has ignited discussions on the need for stricter guidelines regarding asset disclosures by members of the judiciary and mechanisms for investigating unexplained wealth.
Civil society groups have pointed out that the credibility of the judicial system depends heavily on its ability to address allegations of impropriety swiftly and impartially.
Political reactions have so far been measured, with most parties refraining from direct comment until the parliamentary panel concludes its work.
However, several legal commentators have warned that the case will be closely watched internationally as a test of India’s commitment to judicial accountability.
For now, Justice Varma continues to serve on the Allahabad High Court bench, though the ongoing proceedings have cast a shadow over his judicial career.
The outcome of the parliamentary investigation could determine whether he faces impeachment—a rare and historically significant event in Indian legal history.
