Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Varma’s Plea in Cash Discovery Case
In a significant ruling on judicial accountability, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who had challenged the findings of an in-house inquiry panel that found him guilty of misconduct in a high-profile cash discovery case. The apex court also upheld the legal procedures followed by the committee and the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), reinforcing the constitutional validity of the in-house mechanism for probing judicial impropriety.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih observed that Justice Varma’s conduct “does not inspire confidence,” and declined to entertain his plea for invalidating the report or halting the process initiated for his removal. The court further emphasized that the Chief Justice of India is not merely a ceremonial figurehead in such matters, but holds a crucial responsibility towards upholding the integrity of the judiciary.
Challenge to Findings and CJI’s Role
Justice Varma had approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the findings of the in-house panel and also contested the recommendation made by the then CJI to the President and Prime Minister for his removal from office. He argued that the report was flawed and the process adopted was unconstitutional and lacked transparency.
However, the Supreme Court categorically rejected these contentions, stating that the inquiry panel was duly constituted and its functioning was well within the framework established for such cases. The bench ruled that the CJI acted within his constitutional mandate and followed due process in forwarding the panel’s recommendation to the executive for further action.
No Grounds for Criminal Probe
In a parallel development, the court also dismissed a separate petition filed by an advocate, which sought the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Justice Varma based on the allegations that emerged from the inquiry. The bench stated that there were no sufficient grounds to warrant a criminal investigation into the matter at this stage.
“The allegations, though serious in nature, do not currently merit registration of a criminal case,” the court noted, adding that the mechanisms within the judiciary had already addressed the issue appropriately through the in-house procedure.
Court Reinforces Faith in In-House Procedure
The judgment also serves as a reaffirmation of the in-house inquiry mechanism that has often been criticized for its opacity. The court clarified that the procedure, while internal, is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. It exists to uphold the credibility of the judiciary and allows the CJI and senior judges to assess and act upon allegations of misconduct among their peers without undermining judicial independence.
“The in-house procedure, though not statutorily codified, is a recognized constitutional mechanism developed to maintain judicial integrity. The committee acted lawfully, and the CJI’s recommendation was both valid and necessary,” the court said in its order.
Implications for Judicial Accountability
This verdict may set an important precedent regarding the boundaries of internal judicial scrutiny and the extent of oversight that can be exercised over high court judges. By upholding the legality of the process and affirming the CJI’s pivotal role in maintaining discipline within the judiciary, the Supreme Court has effectively reinforced the independence of judicial institutions while underlining the importance of accountability.
Justice Varma’s plea is the latest in a series of high-stakes legal battles concerning judicial ethics. The Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere with the panel’s findings and its endorsement of the established protocol mark a critical moment in the evolution of India’s judicial accountability framework.
With the top court’s backing, the report now lies with the President and the Prime Minister, who will take a final call on the removal process. If approved, this could lead to rare but constitutionally sanctioned action against a sitting high court judge.
This article reflects developments up to August 7, 2025.
