Introduction

On the 14th of March this year, an unprecedented event took place which not only shook the judiciary but also stirred the conscience of the nation. The matter concerned Justice Yashwant Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, when a fire was reported at his official residence on Tughlaq Road at around 11:35 pm. The Delhi Fire Services (DFS) quickly extinguished the fire and reportedly discovered large stacks of cash in the storeroom, some of which were found charred. At the time of this mishap, Justice Varma and his wife were in Bhopal. A video was also recorded by Delhi Police during the incident, which was shared with the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, D.K. Upadhyay. Government authorities reportedly shared this video with Justice Sanjiv Khanna, then Chief Justice of India, before the Collegium meeting. The CJI was informed about these developments and also informed the other members of the Supreme Court Collegium about the video related to the burnt cash piles. He initiated an initial inquiry and sought a report from the Delhi High Court Chief Justice.

In the report, Justice Upadhyay submitted: “I am of the prima facie opinion that the entire matter warrants a deeper probe.” Justice Varma's judicial work was suspended in light of the ongoing inquiry, which was withdrawn following a Delhi High Court circular issued on 24th March. A Collegium meeting was held on 20th March in which all five members of the Supreme Court Collegium unanimously decided to repatriate Justice Varma to his parent institution, the Allahabad High Court. Justice Varma was asked for his opinion. In his response, he consented to return to the Allahabad High Court. In this connection, the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, initiated an unprecedented three-member in-house inquiry into the conduct of Justice Varma following allegations that wads of currency notes were found in his official residence where a fire broke out on March 14.

The panel included Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the Himachal High Court; and Justice Anu Sivaraman, a judge of the Karnataka High Court.

In-House Inquiry in Historical Perspective

The concept of an in-house inquiry originated from a landmark ruling of 1991, K. Veeraswamy vs. Union of India, in which the five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts fall under the definition of “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, as a crucial safeguard to ensure judicial independence, the Apex Court laid down the principle that no investigation against a judge can proceed without the prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India.

The Court held:

“The purpose of grant of previous sanction before prosecuting a public servant, including a judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, is to protect the judge from unnecessary harassment and frivolous prosecution, particularly to save the judge from biased prosecution for giving judgment in a case which goes against the Government or its officers, though based on good reasons and rule of law.”

Undoubtedly, the rationale behind this ruling was to strike a delicate balance between accountability and protecting judges from politically motivated or frivolous allegations that could undermine judicial independence. It is noteworthy that a complaint against a judge need not be made only by or to parliamentarians. The CJI or Chief Justice of a High Court may also be called upon to examine a complaint against a judge.

The need for an internal mechanism arose for the first time in 1995 when allegations of financial impropriety surfaced against then Bombay High Court Chief Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee. Following a resolution passed by the Bombay Bar Association headed by senior advocate Iqbal Chagla, asking for the judge's resignation, a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking restraint from protesting by the Bar. During the hearing of the case (C. Ravichandran Iyer vs. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, 1995), Justices K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria noted the “hiatus between bad behaviour and impeachable behaviour.” The Court further noted that there was no process to hold a judge accountable for “bad conduct inconsistent with the high office,” when such conduct did not meet the high bar of impeachment set by Article 124 of the Constitution.

To fill this "yawning gap between proved misbehaviour and bad conduct inconsistent with the high office," the Supreme Court decided to formulate an in-house procedure. A five-member committee was constituted comprising Justices S.C. Agarwal, A.S. Anand and S.P. Bharucha from the Supreme Court, and Justices P.S.S. Mishra and D.P. Mohapatra, the senior-most High Court Chief Justices at that time. Its mandate was to devise the procedure “for taking suitable remedial action against judges who, by their acts of omission or commission, do not follow the accepted values of judicial life, including the ideals expressed by the Supreme Court in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.” The committee submitted its report in October 1997. It was adopted with amendments in a full court meeting of the Supreme Court in December 1999.

The above-mentioned process of internal inquiry was revisited in 2014 when a woman Additional District and Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh filed a complaint of sexual harassment against a sitting High Court judge. In this case, Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ vs. Registrar General High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Justices J.S. Khehar and Arun Mishra of the Supreme Court summarised and explained this process through "seven steps."

The Seven-Step Inquiry Process

1. The process begins when the Chief Justice of a High Court, the CJI, or the President of India receives a complaint.
2. The CJ of the High Court or President forwards the complaint to the CJI.
3. If not found serious enough, the complaint can be dropped at any stage by the CJI.
4. If warranted, the CJI may seek a preliminary report from the CJ of the concerned High Court.
5. If the CJ recommends a deeper probe, the CJI can order a three-member inquiry comprising two High Court Chief Justices and one High Court judge.
6. The committee has the power to devise its own procedure “consistent with the rules of natural justice.”
7. Based on the inquiry report:
   a. If no substance is found, the case is closed.
   b. If misconduct is proven but not serious, the CJI may advise the judge.
   c. If misconduct is serious, the CJI may advise resignation or retirement.
   d. If refused, the matter is forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister.

In Justice Varma’s case, CJI Sanjiv Khanna has already asked the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court not to assign any judicial work to him. Justice Varma dismissed the allegations as a “conspiracy to malign” him, denying any knowledge of the cash discovered.

The Findings of the Supreme Court Panel

The Supreme Court’s in-house panel concluded that while there may not be direct proof linking Justice Varma, “strong inferential evidence” suggests his “covert or active control” over the cash, which “belied the trust” reposed in him as a constitutional court judge. The 64-page report, submitted to the CJI on May 4th, described this as serious judicial misconduct. Justice Varma declined the CJI’s advice to resign and flagged violations of procedural fairness. The CJI has now forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister along with a recommendation for removal.

The Process of Impeachment Under the Constitution

Article 124(2)(b) & (4) of the Indian Constitution states:

“A judge may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (4).”

Clause (4):

“A judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting...”

This procedure also applies to High Court judges via Article 217(1)(b), read with Article 124(4). The detailed steps are provided in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969.

The process can begin in either House of Parliament. A motion signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members must be submitted. If admitted, a committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a jurist conducts a formal investigation. Based on the findings, Parliament debates and votes. If both Houses adopt the motion by the required special majority, the President can remove the judge.

According to recent reports, the impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma will be brought in the Lok Sabha.

Some Previous Instances:

• 1993: Justice V. Ramaswami (SC) – Motion failed due to Congress abstaining.
• 2011: Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta HC) – Resigned before Lok Sabha took up motion.
• 2011: Justice P.D. Dinakaran (Sikkim HC) – Resigned before inquiry began.
• 2015: Justice S.K. Gangele (MP HC) – Accusation of harassment; not proven.
• 2017: Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy (AP HC) – Motion dropped due to lack of support.

Conclusion

The ongoing impeachment proceedings against the Delhi High Court judge, now repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, indicate a disturbing trend. Though the matter is yet to be concluded, the Supreme Court panel’s report hints at serious misconduct. The judiciary must take this moment to introspect. Incidents like this undermine public trust in the judicial system—a pillar of democracy.

.    .    .

References:

• Utkarsh Anand, CJI begins probe on HC judge over cash recovery, Hindustan Times, Mar 22, 2025.
• Utkarsh Anand, Collegium told about video money found before decision, Hindustan Times, Mar 22, 2025.
• Utkarsh Anand, In focus, ‘91 ruling that balanced judicial accountability,freedom, Hindustan Times, Mar 22, 2025.
• Apurva Vishwanath, Judiciary's in-house inquiry, The Indian Express, Mar 25, 2025.
• Ibid.
• Ibid.
• Ibid.
• Utkarsh Anand, CJI begins probe on HC judge over cash recovery, Hindustan Times, Mar 22, 2025.
• HT Correspondent, HC judge had control over cash: SC panel, Hindustan Times, Jun 26, 2025.
• Jatin Takkar, Impeachment Motion Against Justice Varma May Be Moved in Rajya Sabha This Session, The Economic Times, May 28, 2025.
• Utkarsh Anand, Justice Varma and the winding road to an impeachment, Hindustan Times, Jun 6,2025. Smriti Kak Ramachandran, LS, not RS, will take up HC judge impeachment, Jul 26, 2025.