Cash Discovery Row: SC Turns Down Justice Varma’s Plea Seeking Invalidation Of Panel Report

Justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the validity of a report by an in-house inquiry panel that found him guilty of misconduct in connection with a case involving the discovery of unaccounted cash.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih ruled that the in-house procedure followed by the judges’ committee—constituted by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI)—was in line with the established norms. The court observed that the report was prepared following due process and there was no constitutional error in forwarding it to the Prime Minister and the President with a recommendation for Justice Varma’s removal.

“The in-house procedure and the judges’ committee appointed by the then CJI adhered to the stipulated procedure,” the bench noted in its judgment.

Apex Court Questions Judge’s Conduct

While delivering the order, the bench made strong observations about Justice Varma’s behaviour, stating that his conduct “does not inspire confidence.” The court clearly expressed that such conduct from a sitting High Court judge raised serious concerns and left little scope for judicial leniency.

“Justice Varma’s conduct does not inspire confidence and his plea should not be entertained,” the bench stated.

CJI’s Role Not Merely Symbolic: Supreme Court

The court also stood firm on the constitutional powers of the Chief Justice of India, underlining that the CJI is not expected to act as a mere channel for complaints, but rather has a vital duty to uphold judicial integrity.

Earlier during the hearings, the bench had commented, “The CJI cannot be merely a post office but has certain duties to the nation,” indicating that the Chief Justice holds a central role in maintaining accountability within the judiciary.

Background

Justice Yashwant Varma came under scrutiny after allegations emerged linking him to the unexplained discovery of cash. An in-house panel was constituted to probe the matter, and after reviewing the case, it found him guilty of misconduct. Based on the panel’s findings, a recommendation for his removal was forwarded to the highest constitutional authorities.

Justice Varma had approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the findings, claiming procedural lapses and questioning the authority of the committee. However, the court dismissed his petition, closing the door on any further challenge to the panel’s conclusions.