Justice Varma Challenges In-House Committee Findings and Impeachment Recommendation in Supreme Court

Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has moved the Supreme Court to challenge the findings and procedures of a Supreme Court‑constituted in‑house committee that recommended his impeachment. The committee, appointed by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, had investigated the recovery of large sums of cash at his former residence while he was a judge in the Delhi High Court. Based on the committee’s conclusions, the former CJI forwarded a recommendation for impeachment to the President and the Prime Minister, prompting Varma to seek judicial review.

In his petition, Justice Varma contends that the in‑house inquiry was vitiated by procedural unfairness and constitutional infirmity. He argues that the committee failed to uphold the principles of natural justice. There was no formal complaint, no clearly defined procedure, and no opportunity provided to him to respond to adverse material before the findings were made. According to him, the report improperly reversed the burden of proof, insinuating misconduct without establishing ownership or source of the money. He claims the cash was found in an outhouse unused by his family, and insisted that he was never informed of any rule‑based process or allegations against him prior to the committee's conclusions.

Justice Varma further contends that the in‑house procedure, which allows the judiciary to investigate its own members, is constitutionally dubious. He argues that the process operates parallel to and without the safeguards of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968—legislation that governs formal impeachment. By bypassing that statutory framework, the inquiry undermined the prescribed mechanism for judicial accountability and could lead to arbitrary or biased outcomes.

The timing of the petition is significant, coming just before the Monsoon Session of Parliament, when a motion for Varma’s removal was expected to be tabled. Even judicial functioning was affected: he was stripped of his Delhi High Court duties, reassigned to the Allahabad High Court, and the committee’s findings became public during a perceived “media trial.” Varma contends this prejudged the political process and undermined his judicial standing.

This case raises critical questions about judicial discipline, accountability, and procedural fairness. Should in‑house inquiries follow rigorous standards comparable to statutory impeachment processes? Can such inquiries be conducted transparently while preserving judicial independence? And does Parliament alone retain the authority to assess a judge’s unfitness for office under the Constitution?

Justice Varma’s plea asks the Supreme Court to declare the committee’s recommendation unconstitutional and set aside the inquiry findings. He seeks clarity on whether the in‑house process usurps Parliament’s exclusive role in judicial removal, or if it violates his right to a fair hearing. The petition thus challenges not only the outcome in his case, but also the broader legitimacy and legality of in‑house judicial inquiries in India.