Supreme Court adjudicates case of "a deeply anguished Judge of the Allahabad High Court"

In XXX v. Union of India (Diary No. 38664/2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih dismissed the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house procedure and its outcome, including the recommendation forwarded by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.  It observed, “The challenge on the ground that it violates Articles 214 and 217 of the Constitution is without merit.” The Court's judgment reads:“The allegation that the Chief Justice of India or the Committee acted in deviation from the prescribed procedure is incorrect. The process was meticulously followed, except for the non-uploading of videos, which was not raised as a grievance.” The observed: “It is not unconstitutional for the Chief Justice of India to forward the report to the President.” The court noted, “The contention that the petitioner was not heard holds no weight, as personal hearing is not part of the procedure and was not required.” It also rejected petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking a criminal investigation. 

Earlier, Chief Justice of India, B. R. Gavai on July 23, 2025, recused himself from hearing the challenge filed by Justice Yashwant Varma against the in-house inquiry and the recommendation for his removal, stating, “I was part of the conversation.” 

On July 30, the Court had reserved its judgment in the matter. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued, “This so-called in-house procedure is not backed by statute or the Constitution... What is the source of power?” Justice Datta questioned the delay in challenging the report, observing, “You wait for the inquiry to be over. You wait for the finding. Then you challenge it. That shows something,” and added, “This is not a decision. This is a recommendation. There is a difference.” The Court also warned Advocate Mathews Nedumpara against misleading it by accessing a confidential report: “We will be compelled to take action if you have misled the Court."

Justice Varma had approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the findings of the in-house committee and the recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna following the alleged recovery of charred high-denomination notes from his official residence in March 2025. In his petition, Justice Varma had submitted that he was not present in Delhi during the fire and had no knowledge of any cash. The inquiry process violated natural justice, denied him a hearing, reversed the burden of proof, and operated without a formal complaint.Such proceedings bypass Parliament’s role under Articles 124 and 218. He had prayed to the Supreme Court to declare that in-house committee’s report and the recommendation dated May 8, 2025 be declared unconstitutional and void.