New Delhi: In a significant development, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has forwarded an in-house inquiry report to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi concerning allegations of partially burnt sacks of currency notes found at the former official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge recently transferred to the Allahabad High Court. This action marks a critical step toward potential removal proceedings against Justice Varma in Parliament, following a three-member inquiry committee’s findings. The report, coupled with Justice Varma’s response, highlights a contentious issue within India’s higher judiciary, raising questions about judicial integrity and the constitutional mechanisms for addressing such allegations.
Background of the Cash Discovery Allegations
The controversy erupted following a fire on March 14, 2025, at Justice Yashwant Varma’s earlier official residence in Delhi. Reports emerged of partially burnt sacks of currency notes discovered in a gutted storeroom, separate from the main residential structure. The incident prompted immediate scrutiny, leading to a preliminary enquiry by Delhi High Court Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya. His report recommended a “deeper probe” into the allegations, citing the need for a thorough investigation into the unusual discovery.
In response, CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member inquiry committee on March 22, 2025, comprising:
- Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
- Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the Karnataka High Court
This committee was tasked with conducting an in-depth investigation into the allegations, adhering to the in-house procedure for addressing complaints against judges of the higher judiciary.
Inquiry Committee Findings and CJI’s Actions
The inquiry committee submitted its report on May 3, 2025, concluding that there was sufficient material to warrant the initiation of removal proceedings against Justice Varma. The findings were significant enough for CJI Khanna to write to Justice Varma on May 4, 2025, enclosing a copy of the report and offering him the option to tender his resignation or opt for voluntary retirement. Justice Varma, however, refused to resign, prompting the CJI to escalate the matter.
On May 8, 2025, CJI Khanna forwarded the inquiry committee’s report, along with Justice Varma’s response dated May 6, 2025, to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. An official release confirmed that the CJI’s communication was made “in terms of the In-House Procedure,” enclosing both the committee’s report and Justice Varma’s letter. The CJI is understood to have recommended that the President initiate the process for Justice Varma’s removal, signaling the gravity of the allegations and the committee’s findings.
Justice Yashwant Varma’s Response
Justice Varma has vehemently denied the allegations, asserting that no cash was present at his residence. In his response to the Delhi High Court Chief Justice and later to the inquiry committee’s report, he claimed that neither his family nor his staff were shown the alleged sacks of burnt currency. He further argued that the storeroom, where the currency was reportedly found, was accessible to multiple individuals and not exclusively under his control.
Justice Varma alleged a conspiracy to tarnish his reputation, strongly rejecting any insinuation that his family or staff removed currency or other articles from the storeroom. Notably, he was in Bhopal at the time of the fire, a fact he highlighted to distance himself from the incident. He also welcomed the deeper inquiry in his initial communication to Chief Justice Upadhyaya, emphasizing his willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
However, the inquiry committee’s findings appear to contradict Justice Varma’s claims, as they found credence in the allegations of cash being discovered at his residence. The whereabouts of the burnt currency remnants—whether seized or not—remain undisclosed in the Delhi High Court Chief Justice’s published report, adding to the mystery surrounding the incident.
Constitutional Provisions for Removal of Judges
The process for removing a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court is governed by Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution. These provisions stipulate that a judge can be removed by the President on grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.” The procedure requires the following steps:
- Parliamentary Motion: A motion for removal must be signed by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, after due consultation, decides whether to admit or reject the motion.
- Inquiry Committee: Upon admission, a three-member inquiry committee is formed, comprising one Supreme Court judge, one High Court Chief Justice, and one distinguished jurist, as determined by the Speaker or Chairman.
- Parliamentary Approval: If the committee establishes guilt or incapacity, both Houses of Parliament must pass the motion with a special majority in the same session. A special majority requires the support of a majority of the total membership of each House and at least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
- Presidential Order: The President issues an order for removal after receiving the address from both Houses.
Article 124(5) further empowers Parliament to regulate the procedure for presenting the address and conducting the investigation, as detailed in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. This Act formalizes the process, ensuring a structured and transparent mechanism for addressing allegations against judges.
In-House Procedure and Precedent
The in-house procedure for addressing complaints against judges was elucidated in the 2014 Supreme Court judgment in Additional District and Sessions Judge versus Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh. This judgment clarified that if a judge refuses the CJI’s advice to resign or retire voluntarily after an inquiry committee finds serious allegations, the CJI must forward the report to the President and Prime Minister. The communication explicitly states that the allegations are severe enough to warrant removal proceedings.
In Justice Varma’s case, the CJI’s actions align with this precedent. The inquiry committee’s findings, coupled with Justice Varma’s refusal to resign, necessitated the escalation of the matter to the highest constitutional authorities. The CJI’s letter to the President and Prime Minister underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the need for parliamentary action.
Implications for the Judiciary
The cash discovery row involving Justice Yashwant Varma has significant implications for the Indian judiciary, particularly concerning public trust and judicial accountability. The allegations of burnt currency notes found at a judge’s residence raise questions about transparency and integrity within the higher judiciary. The fact that Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court after the incident, where he took oath on April 5, 2025, adds another layer of complexity to the case.
The inquiry committee’s findings and the CJI’s recommendation for removal proceedings highlight the judiciary’s commitment to addressing allegations of misconduct head-on. However, the lack of clarity regarding the remnants of the burnt currency and the storeroom’s accessibility may fuel public speculation and debate.
Next Steps in the Removal Process
With the inquiry report now in the hands of the President and Prime Minister, the next steps depend on parliamentary action. A motion for Justice Varma’s removal must be initiated in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, meeting the required signature thresholds. If admitted, the motion will proceed to a vote, requiring a special majority in both Houses during the same session. Only then can the President issue an order for Justice Varma’s removal.
Given the rarity of such proceedings—only a handful of judges have faced impeachment motions in India’s history—the case is likely to attract significant attention. The outcome will set a precedent for handling similar allegations in the future, reinforcing the judiciary’s accountability mechanisms or exposing gaps in the system.
Conclusion
The submission of the inquiry report on Justice Yashwant Varma to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi marks a pivotal moment in the cash discovery row. CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s actions reflect the judiciary’s resolve to uphold integrity and accountability, even in the face of serious allegations against one of its own. As the matter moves to Parliament, all eyes will be on the constitutional process for removing a judge, a rare and weighty procedure that underscores the delicate balance between judicial independence and public trust.
This case, rooted in allegations of burnt currency notes and a judge’s refusal to resign, serves as a reminder of the robust mechanisms in place to address judicial misconduct. Whether Justice Varma’s removal proceedings materialize or not, the episode will leave a lasting impact on India’s judicial landscape, shaping perceptions of accountability and transparency for years to come.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1.What are the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma?
Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge recently transferred to the Allahabad High Court, is accused of having partially burnt sacks of currency notes found in a gutted storeroom at his former official residence in Delhi after a fire on March 14, 2025. The allegations prompted a preliminary enquiry and a subsequent in-depth probe by a three-member inquiry committee, which found sufficient material to recommend initiating removal proceedings.
2.What actions has the Chief Justice of India taken in this case?
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member inquiry committee on March 22, 2025, to investigate the allegations. After the committee submitted its report on May 3, 2025, CJI Khanna shared it with Justice Varma on May 4, offering him the option to resign or retire voluntarily. When Justice Varma refused, the CJI forwarded the report, along with Justice Varma’s response, to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 8, 2025, recommending the initiation of removal proceedings.
3.What is the constitutional process for removing a High Court judge?
Under Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution, a High Court judge can be removed by the President for “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.” The process involves a motion signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members, followed by the formation of a three-member inquiry committee. If the committee establishes guilt, both Houses of Parliament must pass the motion with a special majority (a majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting) in the same session. The President then issues a removal order.
4.What was Justice Varma’s response to the allegations?
Justice Varma denied the presence of any cash at his residence, stating that neither his family nor staff were shown the alleged burnt currency. He claimed the storeroom was accessible to multiple individuals and alleged a conspiracy to malign his reputation. He was in Bhopal during the fire and welcomed a deeper inquiry, rejecting any insinuation that his family or staff removed currency or articles from the storeroom.
5.What happens next in the removal process for Justice Varma?
The inquiry committee’s report is now with the President and Prime Minister. The next step requires a motion for removal to be initiated in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, meeting the signature threshold (100 members for Lok Sabha or 50 for Rajya Sabha). If admitted, the motion must be passed by both Houses with a special majority in the same session. If successful, the President can issue an order to remove Justice Varma from his position as a High Court judge.
