Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has taken aim at the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry into Justice Yashwant Varma, criticising its 3-member panel for bypassing fundamental fair-hearing norms.
The committee—led by Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana HC), with Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh HC) and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka HC)—concluded that the cash found in an outhouse at Justice Varma’s New Delhi residence could only have been placed there with his knowledge and permission.
Allegations Of Procedural Shortfalls
At a press briefing on Tuesday, Sibal underscored glaring omissions in the inquiry. He noted that the report “did not mention the amount of money recovered” and appeared to rest on presumptions rather than hard evidence. “You decided against a High Court judge without any inquiry and procedure… The judge was not even heard. This is absolutely shocking,” he declared, stressing that Justice Varma never had the opportunity to respond before the committee issued its findings.
Contrast With Past Impeachments
Sibal drew a clear line between this case and earlier judicial removals, where facts were generally undisputed. “In all other impeachment cases against judges in the past, the facts were not in dispute, unlike in Justice Varma’s case,” he said, arguing that the absence of a hearing and lack of transparency mark a radical departure from established practice.
Context
The in-house inquiry was prompted by a March fire at Justice Varma’s Delhi High Court residence. Firefighters investigating the blaze discovered bundles of unaccounted cash in an outbuilding—sparking allegations of impropriety. The Supreme Court promptly convened its internal panel to determine how the money came to be there.
Accusations Of Selective Shielding
Beyond procedural concerns, Sibal raised broader issues of consistency and political influence. He accused the Centre of protecting Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, who was accused last year of making “communal” remarks. “Unfortunately, the political class is brought into the act, and this government is protecting a judge (Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav). For all impeachments in the past, the case here is entirely different,” Sibal contended, suggesting a double standard in judicial accountability.
Implications For Judicial Integrity
This clash highlights tensions inside India’s highest courts over transparency, due process, and the scope of in-house disciplinary powers. Critics argue that without clear procedures and the right to a hearing, such inquiries risk undermining judicial independence as much as they seek to uphold it.
With the committee’s report already public, attention now turns to whether Justice Varma will challenge its conclusions and press for a formal hearing. Legal experts say a refusal to grant him a fair forum could set a concerning precedent—one that places reputation and tenure at the mercy of opaque internal mechanisms.
By spotlighting procedural flaws and alleged political favoritism, Kapil Sibal’s intervention raises crucial questions about fairness at the apex of India’s judiciary—and whether even judges are entitled to the same due process they are sworn to protect.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
