+ Follow

Photo by Pranav Shrivastava on Unsplash

"Mahatma Gandhi is on fire" — these haunting words from a Delhi fire department officer on the night of March 14, 2025, would ignite one of the most explosive judicial scandals in India's constitutional history.

Midnight blaze that exposed Crores

The Indian judiciary finds itself engulfed in a constitutional firestorm following Justice Yashwant Varma's petition to the Supreme Court on July 18, 2025. The Allahabad High Court judge has launched a comprehensive legal challenge against the internal inquiry mechanism that recommended his removal from office, raising fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the constitutional framework governing judicial accountability.

When the smoke cleared, the truth emerged

The entire controversy stems from a devastating fire incident that occurred during the night of March 14-15, 2025, at Justice Varma's official residential premises in Delhi's ultra-secure VIP enclave at 30 Tuglaq Crescent. When Delhi Fire Department officers responded to the emergency call at 11:30 PM, they had no idea they were about to uncover something that would become India's most sensational judicial scandal.

As soon as they enter, one officer notices that there's something under his feet. What is it? Burned currency notes. In a transparent bag, notes worth crores have been stored. When he looks closely, he sees 500-rupee note bundles on the ground. Some are half-burnt, and some have turned to ashes. At this very moment, one officer says, Mahatma Gandhi is on fire. "Mahatma Gandhi is on fire." The fire officers take photos and videos to show this scene. After this, it's clear that this house doesn't belong to an ordinary man. This shocking discovery became the evidence for a series of events that would challenge the very foundations of how judicial misconduct is investigated and addressed in India.

The timing and nature of this discovery raised serious questions about the presence of unaccounted cash estimated at ₹15 crores in a senior judge's official residence. One fire officer, upon seeing the charred remains of 500-rupee note bundles piled 1.5 feet high, made the chilling observation that would define this case: "Mahatma Gandhi is on fire. (https://x.com/LiveLawIndia)

The In-House Inquiry

In response to the explosive allegations arising from the March incident, then-Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-judge in-house inquiry committee to investigate the matter. This committee was tasked with examining the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the unaccounted cash and determining whether Justice Varma's conduct warranted removal from office.

The committee's investigation confirmed the presence of unaccounted cash in the damaged storeroom, lending credibility to the allegations that had emerged following the fire. This finding became the cornerstone of the subsequent recommendation for Justice Varma's removal from his judicial position.

Unprecedented Recommendation

Following the completion of the in-house inquiry, Chief Justice Khanna made the extraordinary decision to recommend Justice Varma's removal from office. This recommendation was formally forwarded to both the Prime Minister and the President in May 2025, after Justice Varma refused to voluntarily resign from his position.

The forwarding of this recommendation marked a critical juncture in Indian judicial history, representing one of the rare instances where the internal judicial mechanism had moved to initiate the process for a judge's removal based on allegations of financial misconduct.

Constitutional Battle Lines Are Drawn: Challenging the System from Within

Justice Varma's petition raises profound constitutional questions regarding the authority to remove judges from office. His legal challenge centers on the explosive argument that the in-house inquiry process represents what he terms a "parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism" that fundamentally undermines Parliament's exclusive constitutional authority in matters of judicial removal.

The petition specifically contends that this internal judicial process violates the constitutional framework established under Articles 124 and 218 of the Indian Constitution. These articles explicitly vest Parliament with the exclusive power to remove judges through a formal address supported by a special majority, following a proper inquiry conducted under the established legal framework.

Judges (Inquiry) Act and the Forgotten Law?

Central to Justice Varma's argument is the existence of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the statutory mechanism for investigating allegations against judges. This Act establishes a structured process that must precede any parliamentary address for removal, ensuring due process and proper investigation of charges.

By bypassing this established statutory framework, Justice Varma argues that the in-house inquiry mechanism has effectively been Parliament's constitutional role and violated the principles of separation of powers that form the bedrock of India's constitutional democracy.

High-Stakes Legal Drama Unfolds: Senior Advocates Enter for support

The gravity of the constitutional issues raised in this case is underscored by the involvement of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who made an oral mention seeking an early hearing of the petition. Sibal's intervention highlights the broader implications of this case for the constitutional framework governing judicial accountability.

The senior advocate emphasized that the petition raises several critical constitutional issues concerning the recommendation made by former Chief Justice Khanna for Justice Varma's removal. These issues extend beyond the specific circumstances of this case to encompass fundamental questions about the proper constitutional mechanisms for addressing judicial misconduct.

Parliament Strikes Back

The seriousness of the allegations and the Chief Justice's recommendation prompted swift action from Parliament. Members of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha submitted formal notices to their respective presiding officers, initiating the removal motion process against Justice Varma.

This parliamentary response demonstrates the gravity with which the legislature views the allegations and the recommendation from the judicial hierarchy. The coordinated action across both houses of Parliament reflects the constitutional significance of the matter and the need for proper legislative scrutiny of the charges.

Supreme Court's Constitutional Dilemma: When Judges Judge Judges

Current Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai's willingness to judicially examine the question of Justice Varma's removal represents a crucial development in this constitutional crisis. The Supreme Court's involvement adds another layer of complexity to an already intricate situation, as the apex court must now adjudicate on the very processes used by the judiciary to discipline itself.

This judicial review of the judicial process creates an unprecedented situation where the Supreme Court must evaluate the constitutional validity of mechanisms employed by its own institutional hierarchy. The outcome of this examination will have far-reaching implications for future cases involving judicial accountability.

Allahabad High Court Rejection: Are we some dumping ground?

The controversy intensified when Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, prompting fierce resistance from the local bar association. The Allahabad Bar Association wrote a letter to the Supreme Court by declaring that "the Allahabad High Court is not a trash can" and expressing outrage at what they saw as the dumping of a corrupt judge on their institution.

The association argued that they never requested Justice Varma's appointment and suggested that inadequate verification processes had led to this corruption scandal, thereby eroding public trust in the judiciary.

Missing Pieces: A Web of Contradictions

As investigations progressed, several troubling inconsistencies emerged in the official narrative. Most notably, crucial CCTV footage from the night of the incident mysteriously went missing, raising serious questions about evidence tampering and cover-up attempts.

Security guards at Justice Varma's residence reportedly told police that within hours of the fire being extinguished, the storeroom was tampered with and burnt items were removed. This revelation added another layer of suspicion to an already complex case.

When confronted with these allegations, Justice Varma maintained his innocence, claiming no knowledge of the source of the cash found in his official residence. However, the photographic and video evidence from the scene painted a starkly different picture.

Broader Constitutional Implications: A Test of Democratic Institutions

The Justice Varma case exposes a fundamental tension between the judiciary's desire for self-regulation and the constitutional framework that vests Parliament with the ultimate authority over judicial removal. This tension raises important questions about the balance between judicial independence and accountability within India's constitutional system.

The case highlights the urgent need for clarity regarding the proper constitutional channels for addressing allegations of judicial misconduct, particularly in cases involving serious financial impropriety. The resolution of this matter will likely establish important precedents for future cases involving similar allegations against members of the judiciary.

Setting Precedents for the Future

The Supreme Court's eventual decision in this matter will undoubtedly establish crucial precedents for how allegations against judges are investigated and processed within India's constitutional framework. The outcome will determine whether internal judicial mechanisms can operate parallel to established constitutional processes or whether all such matters must follow the prescribed parliamentary route.

Defining Moment

As the Supreme Court posed three pointed questions to Justice Varma about why there was so much cash in your house? Where did this cash come from? Who removed the burnt notes from the room on March 15th? and it became clear that this case represents far more than just an individual controversy.

The Justice Varma case embodies a defining moment for India's constitutional governance and the principles of separation of powers. The resolution of this matter will determine the proper balance between judicial self-governance and parliamentary oversight, establishing precedents that will guide future cases involving judicial accountability.

As the Supreme Court prepares to examine these fundamental constitutional questions, the entire legal fraternity and the public at large await a decision that will clarify the proper mechanisms for ensuring judicial accountability while preserving the independence that is essential to the effective functioning of India's democratic institutions.

The flames that consumed Justice Varma's storeroom that March night may have been extinguished, but the constitutional fire they ignited continues to burn, threatening to reshape the very foundations of judicial governance in India.

Why removal of a High Court judge will always a Herculean task?

Removing a High Court or Supreme Court judge isn't that easy. Let me explain the process. First, at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs will have to pass a removal motion. If the motion is accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman, a three-member investigative committee will be created. The committee will decide whether the judge was guilty or not. After that, one of the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha houses will vote on the motion. But it won't be a regular vote. It'll be a special majority vote.

That is, a two-thirds majority will be needed to pass the motion. If the motion is passed in one house, it'll be sent to the other house. The same process will be repeated. If both the houses agree, it will be sent to the President of India. When the President signs it, the judge can be removed. Since July 3, the government has begun preparing the motion for the removal of Justice Verma. Justice Verma has been transferred to the Allahabad High Court, but no legal work has been assigned to him.

People also say that Justice Verma has never been given a chance to put forward his arguments. So, whether you agree that Justice Verma is guilty or not, it's up to you to decide whether the burden of proof is on Justice Verma to explain how the cash was found in his house or on the courts to prove that Justice Verma took bribes, and this money is the result of that process. But we still don't know how the money came to be inside the storeroom. It's said that the law is blind. But now we know that the protectors of the law and their household staff can also be blind.

.    .    .

References:

Discus