On Monday, 28th July, the Supreme Court delivered a scathing response to Justice Yashwant Varma’s petition, in which he challenged the findings of an in-house inquiry conducted by the apex court itself. The inquiry had been initiated following a major incident at Justice Varma's official government residence in Delhi, where a huge pile of cash was discovered inside a storeroom, triggered by a fire outbreak in March this year. The visuals from the scene had quickly gone viral, sparking public outrage and calls for accountability.

The bench—Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih—grilled Justice Varma’s legal team, questioning the credibility and logic behind his current position. They focused on one central issue: why did Justice Varma take part in the internal investigation if he believed from the start that the committee lacked the authority to probe him?

“Why did you appear before the committee if you thought it had no power to investigate? You are a constitutional authority; you can’t now say that you didn’t know,” Justice Datta remarked firmly during the proceedings.

Representing Justice Varma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the actions against his client were outside the boundaries of due process. He emphasized that any move to remove a sitting judge must go through a proper constitutional path, citing Article 124 of the Constitution, which stipulates that judges can only be removed through a formal motion passed in Parliament. Sibal accused the internal committee of overstepping its mandate and stated that its findings were being weaponized to create a media trial, even before any legitimate impeachment process had begun.

He added that the videos of the fire incident and visuals showing the cash stash were shared in public, causing significant harm to Justice Varma’s image, even though a formal process was still pending.

Sibal also raised concerns about the actions of the Chief Justice of India, asserting that the CJI had no legal right to forward the inquiry report directly to the President or the Prime Minister, a move which, according to him, violated established constitutional protocol.

SC Questions the Timing and Intent Behind the Petition

The court did not back down and continued to scrutinize the intentions behind the petition. Justice Datta made a critical observation: “Why wait until the report was out?” He questioned why Justice Varma did not raise objections when the internal committee was first set up or when the tapes were made public, instead of waiting until the report came out with findings against him.

Sibal responded that they had initially hoped the committee would dig deeper and reveal the actual source of the cash, suggesting that it didn’t belong to Justice Varma. But Justice Datta responded with skepticism. He pointed out that although Sibal kept saying the money wasn’t Varma’s, he hadn’t explicitly denied that the cash was found at his residence.

“If the cash was there, it has to be explained,” Justice Datta said, making it clear that the presence of such a large amount of money at a judge’s home raises serious concerns, regardless of who it officially belongs to.

Sibal argued that no direct link had been proven between the money and the judge. “Where is the link between the cash and the judge himself?” he asked, claiming that the internal report was merely an opinion and not admissible as legal evidence under the Judges’ Inquiry Act.

However, the court emphasized that this was not just a procedural matter. Justice Datta made it clear that public confidence in the judiciary was at stake. The appearance of impropriety, especially involving high-ranking judges, undermines the credibility of the justice system, even before any formal charges are proven.

The bench finally adjourned the hearing until Wednesday, instructing Kapil Sibal to submit a copy of the internal inquiry report on record before the next session.

Justice Yashwant Varma Attempts to Conceal Identity in Supreme Court Petition

In a move that has added another layer of controversy to the unfolding scandal, Justice Yashwant Varma has attempted to keep his identity hidden while challenging the internal inquiry committee’s findings in the Supreme Court. According to the official cause list of the Supreme Court dated Monday, 28th July, the petition was listed as “XXX vs The Union of India”—with “XXX” being used to refer to Justice Varma.

This concealment was not arbitrary. Justice Varma has requested the Supreme Court to allow non-disclosure of his identity in connection with the petition, a request that stands out due to the nature of the case.

While such anonymity is not unprecedented in Indian courts, it is typically reserved for cases involving victims of sexual assault, survivors of rape, or matters involving juveniles and minors, where disclosure could have serious psychological or social consequences. In contrast, this case concerns a sitting judge accused of possessing large amounts of unaccounted cash, making the demand for anonymity appear unusual and prompting widespread attention.

Inside the Fire, the Cash, and the Fallout

The roots of this case trace back to March this year, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence. Firefighters who were deployed to control the blaze made a shocking discovery—piles of cash hidden in a storeroom. News of the incident spread rapidly, igniting public outrage and calling into question the integrity of the judiciary. At the time, Justice Varma was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court.

Soon after the incident, then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, responded by forming a three-member internal committee comprising senior judges. The purpose was to examine how such a massive amount of cash could end up inside a judge's residence. Justice Varma was transferred back to the Allahabad High Court, and his judicial duties were suspended while the inquiry was ongoing.

The internal panel conducted a detailed investigation. It examined 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma and his daughter, and also went through photos and video footage captured by the Delhi Fire Brigade during the rescue operation. After careful review, the committee stated that the cash was found in a section of the house that was under the control of Justice Varma or his family. Moreover, he could not offer any reasonable explanation about the origin or purpose of the money.

Because of this, the committee recommended strict action against him. This triggered parliamentary proceedings, and last week, a group of Members of Parliament from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha submitted a formal notice for his impeachment.

The Chief Justice of India, based on the committee's findings, had earlier forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister. Despite being advised to resign, Justice Varma refused to step down, holding his ground and instead challenging the report in court.

With the entire matter now evolving into a broader constitutional and judicial debate—involving issues of accountability, transparency, and separation of powers—many legal experts believe that the Supreme Court’s final verdict in this case could set a landmark precedent for how internal investigations against judges are treated in the future.