THE CONTEXT: The controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma stems from the discovery of large amounts of burnt and partially burnt cash at his official residence in New Delhi in March 2025, which led to an impeachment recommendation and subsequent legal and parliamentary proceedings.
Here is a timeline of events in the case:
-
- March 14, 2025: Firefighters responding to a fire at then-Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence discovered stacks of burnt and partially burnt cash. Justice Varma, who was out of town at the time, denied any knowledge of the money.
- March 28, 2025: The Supreme Court Collegium transferred Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court, instructing that he be assigned no judicial work pending an inquiry.
- May 3, 2025: An in-house inquiry committee appointed by the Chief Justice of India submitted a report finding Justice Varma guilty of “misconduct” and concluding he had “covert or active control” over the cash.
- July 21, 2025: Rajya Sabha Chairman admitted an impeachment motion against Justice Varma after the recommendation for removal was sent by the Chief Justice of India.
- July 30, 2025: The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on Justice Varma’s plea challenging the validity of the in-house inquiry process.
- August 7, 2025: The Supreme Court dismissed Justice Varma’s petition. The court upheld the legality of the in-house inquiry procedure, clearing the way for Parliament to proceed with impeachment.
- August 12, 2025: Lok Sabha Speaker constituted a three-member parliamentary inquiry committee to investigate the allegations. The motion for removal remains pending until the committee submits its report.
Justice Varma’s legal arguments and parliamentary proceedings
-
- Justice Varma, argued that the in-house inquiry was an “extra-constitutional mechanism” that encroached upon Parliament’s exclusive authority to remove a high court judge.
- The Supreme Court’s ruling on August 7, 2025, determined that the in-house procedure is a valid, “gap-filling” mechanism to ensure judicial integrity.
- As of October 2025, the matter is pending before the parliamentary committee, which will report its findings to the Lok Sabha.
WHAT IS IN-HOUSE COMMITTEE?
It is an informal committee which is constituted by the CJI in the backdrop of any judicial misconduct to ensure in-house accountability in judiciary.
According to the in-house procedure, a committee comprising two Chief Justices and one judge of a High Court shall hold a fact-finding inquiry. The concerned judge is entitled to appear before this committee and have their say.
However, as this is not a formal judicial inquiry, there is no provision for witness examination, cross-examination and legal representation. This is one of the main reasons the in-house procedure is different from the ones followed by the inquiry committees established under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
In conducting the inquiry, the in-house committee is free to devise its own procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice. There have been eight in-house committees set up so far by the CJI.
However, since the reports submitted by these committees are not public, there remains a shroud of mystery over their internal procedure and how they arrived at their findings.
ORIGIN OF THE COMMITTEE
-
- The in-house mechanism was created as a result of the Supreme Court’s judgement in Ravichandran Iyer v Justice A.M.Bhattacharjee (1995). The decision noted that it was a mechanism to fill in the “yawning gap” between proved misbehaviour and bad conduct inconsistent with the high office.
- In furtherance of the directions issued in this case, the Supreme Court constituteda five-judge committee which submitted its report in October 1997. Its suggestions were adopted with amendments in a full-court meeting in December 1999.
THE EXPERIENCE SO FAR
So far, over 11 inquiries have been constituted as per reports. The experience is mixed type.
| CASE | INQUIRY | OUTCOME |
|---|---|---|
| In 1991, Justice V. Ramaswami became the first judge to face removal proceedings under the Judges Inquiry Act. | In his case, the in-house committee reported that there was no prima facie evidence against him as inquiries by competent authorities were going on. Justice Ramaswami had challenged the committee’s jurisdiction and refused to answer its questions. In its turn, the Inquiry Committee set up by the Lok Sabha Speaker found sufficient evidence to warrant Justice Ramaswamy’s removal. | He stayed in office until retirement (without work) as the motion seeking his removal was defeated in the Lok Sabha. |
| Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court was the second judge to face impeachment proceedings in Parliament in 2011 | He not only subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the in-house committee, but also defended himself before it. Initially, he refused to abide by its advice to resign. | He later resigned on 1 September 2011, four days before the Lok Sabha was to discuss the motion against him. |
| P.D. Dinakaran 2011 | P.D. Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, was the third judge to face impeachment proceedings in Parliament, 2011. | Justice Dinakaran resigned, frustrating the work of the Inquiry Committee set up by the Rajya Sabha Chairman. |
| Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab & Haryana High Court | In 2008, then CJI K.G. Balakrishnan set up an in-house committee to investigate the “cash-at-door” allegation against Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. In November 2021, an RTI revealed that even though the three-member committee had found that the “misconduct” was “serious enough” for the initiation of removal proceedings, the CJI had given a clean chit to Justice Yadav. The CBI received sanction to prosecute Justice Yadav only in March 2011. | In March 2025, Justice Yadav was acquitted by a CBI court for lack of sufficient evidence. |
| A.K.Ganguly | The in-house committee set up to inquire into the allegations of sexual harassment against Justice A K Ganguly, was found guilty. | No actin was taken as he was already retired |
| Justice S.N. Shukla, 2018 | In 2018, then CJI Dipak Misra recommended the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Justice S.N. Shukla to the Prime Minister. The in-house committee had found Shukla guilty of favouring a private medical college in his orders. After his retirement, the CBI registered a case against him. | Found guilty by the committee but impeachment proceedings were not brought by Parliament |
| CJI Rajan Gogoi in 2019 | Infamously, the in-house committee investigating sexual harassment charges against former CJI Rajan Gogoi in 2019, gave him a clean chit. Its report was kept away from the complainant as well as the public. The complainant boycotted the proceedings of the committee after it rejected her plea to be represented by a lawyer. | Outcome-the allegation rejected |
Is it a judicial overreach?
No, not at all. It is an in-house mechanism to ensure judicial accountability.
Whether it is important to first conduct in-house inquiry then then parliament can take up the impeachment motion?
No, not at all. Parliament can take up impeachment motion on its own. Both inquiries are not interdependent, rather independent.
THE CRITICISMS OF IN-HOUSE INQUIRY
Justice Varma case (2025): The in-house inquiry that found unaccounted cash at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence was criticized for being an “extra-constitutional mechanism” and not providing safeguards found in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Varma’s challenge to the findings highlighted the procedure’s opaque and non-statutory nature.
Opacity and secrecy: The inquiry process’s findings are confidential and not made public, leading to suspicions of institutional bias. For instance, in 2021, an RTI revealed that a clean chit was given to a judge despite a committee finding serious misconduct. The 2019 sexual harassment case against then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi also faced criticism for its secrecy and for denying the complainant legal representation.
Lack of criminal liability: Judges found guilty of misconduct rarely face criminal prosecution. Examples include Justice P.D. Dinakaran (who resigned over land-grabbing charges) and Justice Soumitra Sen (who faced impeachment for financial misconduct).
Ineffective consequences: Judges have often refused to cooperate with in-house findings, and the discreet objective of the process is frustrated when it leads to impeachment proceedings anyway. The limited outcomes, such as transfer or withholding judicial work, can be seen as weak disciplinary actions.
THE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
1. National Judicial Oversight Committee: Create a statutory, independent body composed of retired judges, legal experts, and civil society members to impartially investigate complaints against judges.
2. Statutory backing: Codify the “in-house procedure” into law, such as through a Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, to provide it with legal authority and a clear framework for due process and transparency.
3. Enhance transparency and public trust: Disclose the key findings of inquiries to increase public confidence in the system’s accountability, without compromising judicial privacy.
4. Mandatory asset declaration: Legally mandate all judges to publicly disclose their assets and liabilities annually, along with those of their spouses and dependents.
5. Codified conduct standards: Introduce a national code of judicial conduct, enforced by an independent body, to provide clear guidelines on ethical behavior and conflicts of interest.
6. Address criminal liability: When misconduct involves potential criminal offenses, ensure that proper legal and criminal prosecution can be initiated against judges, similar to other public officials.
7. Reform impeachment: Refine the impeachment process to be more transparent and efficient, with clear timelines and public disclosure of proceedings to avoid political deadlocks.
8. Protect whistleblowers: Create a safe mechanism for judicial staff to report misconduct without fear of retaliation, fostering a culture of openness.
9. Ensure due process: Guarantee that judges facing inquiry have the right to a fair defense, including the ability to be represented by a lawyer, review evidence, and present their case.
10. Set time-bound proceedings: Implement strict timelines for inquiries and disciplinary actions to prevent delays and ensure timely justice.
CONCLUSION
The US/UK have formalised their informal practices. India needs to adopt Judicial Standards and Accountability Act(proposed in 2014) to replace judges inquiries act 1968.
Recent debates, highlighted by the 2025 case of Justice Yashwant Varma, have identified major shortcomings in the judiciary’s in-house inquiry process, particularly its opacity and lack of statutory backing. To improve the system, a broad range of reforms are needed, focusing on enhancing transparency, ensuring accountability, and balancing judicial independence.
Spread the Word