CJI agrees to constitute Bench to hear plea on behalf of Justice Varma

Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) said he will constitute a Bench for hearing a petition filed on behalf of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendation to the President and Prime Minister, in the month of May, to remove the judge from office.

The Chief Justice said he, however, would not be part of the Bench.

“I will have to constitute a Bench on this. I think it will not be proper for me to take up the matter because I was part of the consultations then,” Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who made an oral mentioning for an early hearing of the petition.

“That is for you to decide,” Mr. Sibal replied.

“We will just take a call and constitute a Bench,” Chief Justice Gavai said.

Mr. Sibal said the petition has raised several constitutional issues with respect to the recommendation made by Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) for the removal of Justice Varma.

The Chief Justice’s willingness to judicially examine the question of removal of Justice Varma comes a couple of days after a removal motion was initiated when Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members submitted notices to the presiding officers of their respective Houses.

The petition in the Supreme Court argued that the in-house inquiry process was a “parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism” designed for the judiciary to usurp the Parliament’s exclusive authority.

An in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed that unaccounted cash was found in the gutted storeroom at the official residential premises of Justice Varma after a blaze on March 14-15. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the Prime Minister and President in May after Justice Varma refused to resign.

The challenge in the apex court contended that the in-house inquiry took away the exclusive powers of the Parliament under Article 124 and 218 of the Constitution to remove judges through an address supported by a special majority after an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

“This Act provides a comprehensive, legislatively sanctioned process with stringent safeguards, including formal charges, cross-examination, and proof beyond reasonable doubt for ‘proved misbehaviour’. On the other hand, the in-house procedure, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority,” the petition said.

The petition, filed under an anonymous acronym ‘XXX’, described the petitioner as an Allahabad High Court judge.

The in-house procedure, devised by the Supreme Court, had no legal sanction. It was a threat to the separation of powers, the petition argued. Justice Varma urged the apex court to declare the in-house procedure unconstitutional.

The petition argued the in-house inquiry procedure against sitting judges was also a threat to judicial independence, an essential part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

“It overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thus erodes judicial independence and public confidence,” it submitted.

It also made a direct attack on Chief Justice Khanna, saying the latter did not give Justice Varma a personal hearing after the committee report came out nor had afforded him a chance to properly review the document.

The petition pointed out that the inquiry reached its conclusions merely on the basis of presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the ‘discovery’ of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared.

The whole series of events were based on certain photos and videos privately taken by some officials. It said the inquiry committee was unfair to the High Court and did not find the answers it was constituted for, including when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse.