Abstract
In this article I will explore the controversial case of Justice Yashwant Varma, a Delhi High Court judge caught up in a judicial ethics scandal involving the alleged discovery of ₹15 crore in cash at his official residence. What began as a fire on the judicial officers property escalated into a major constitutional issue that included an in-house inquiry ordered by the Supreme Court, a judicial transfer, allegations of impeachment, and a petition alleging a breach of procedural fairness. I outline the chronology of events, the legal mechanisms that were invoked, the observations of the Supreme Court, and the wider implications for judicial accountability in India. I then explore the constitutional and ethical issues that the case raises including questions of natural justice, internal transparency, and the limits of judicial independence. As the case moves forward through the courts, and parliament, it represents a moment for India is higher judiciary to set precedents, on how to deal with serious allegations of corruption that are raised against members of the judiciary.
Introduction
In March 2025, the Indian judiciary was rocked by the allegations against sitting Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, after a large amount of unaccounted cash – allegedly worth Rs. 15 crore – was found at his official premises after a fire. What initially had looked like a small fire had developed into the highest profile judicial scandal in recent memory.
The Incident That Sparked It All
In the early hours of 15 March 2025, a fire started in a storeroom in Justice Yashwant Varma’s official bungalow in New Delhi. When the fire brigade arrived to extinguish the fire, they found burnt bundles of cash – some faded bundles were still intact – in a storage area of the official residence.
At the time, Justice Varma was in Bhopal. Upon learning of the fire, he denied any knowledge or any involvement. He claimed it was a fabricated conspiracy against him. Nonetheless, the significance of large amounts of unaccounted cash found at a judge’s residence reverberated through the legal and political professions.
The Judiciary Responds
At the piece of it, the Supreme Court Collegium under then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna was notified. The Collegium referred the matter on March 20, to recommend that Justice Varma be transferred to his parent High Court of Allahabad but also directed that he not be assigned any judicial work until he showed not harmful behaviour.
Subsequent to that, on March 21, the full court, made of all sitting Supreme Court judges decided that transfer would not be sufficient. An in-house inquiry was needed and CJI Khanna formed a three-judge fact-finding committee.
Constitution of the In-House Inquiry Committee
Constitution of the In-House Inquiry Committee
The committee comprised:
i Justice Sheel Nagu (from the Punjab & Haryana High Court)
ii Jusice G.S. Sandhawalia (from the Himachal Pradesh High Court)
iii Jusice Anu Sivaraman (from the Karnataka High Court)
The committee took evidence over ten days from more than 50 witnesses. It had witnesses including members from the fire brigade, local police, and domestic staff. The committee had also reviewed electronic evidence, i.e., CCTV footage, photographs, calls and messages..
The committee provided its final report on May 4, 2025, finding that indeed, large quantities of cash were found in the house, and that several actions amounted to attempts to hide or remove evidence from when the authorities arrived. It was emphasized in the report, however, that the cash was contained in only a part of the house with access only to Justice Varma’s family.
Transfer Fallout and Bar Association Backlash
Although the administrative decision to transfer Justice Varma to Allahabad was hastily carried out, it faced substantial backlash from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association. The body of lawyers staged an indefinite strike, denouncing the transfer and demanding that the High Court not simply be a “dumping ground” for judges with a questionable past.
The Bar Association also called for the review of all prior judgments made by Justice Varma along with an urgent request for the Supreme Court to reconsider the transfer instead of suspending him pending the full investigation.
Impeachment Recommendation
Based on the findings of the committee, CJI Khanna made a recommendation to the Union Government that impeachment proceedings should be initiated against Justice Varma. The report of the committee stated that the conduct of the judge substantially damaged the reputation and integrity of the judiciary and he should be removed under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
Under the constitutional process, a Judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court can only be removed by impeachment proceedings in Parliament, and requires a two-thirds majority in both houses.
Political parties, including the Indian National Congress, announced their willingness to support the motion. More than 100 members of Parliament signed the notice to begin the process, making it a rare event but important constitutional process.
Legal Challenge by Justice Varma
In an unexpected turn of events, Justice Varma filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the findings of the in-house inquiry. Justice Varma argued that:
i He had not been afforded a proper hearing,
ii He had not been allowed to cross-examine witnesses,
iii The committee had gone beyond their jurisdiction.
In the petition he raised a number of complex constitutional questions about the ambit of in-house procedures, principles of natural justice and whether the in-house inquiry was subject to judicial review.
Current Status (As of August 2025)
i Justice Varma remains a judicial high court judge only without parody, at Allahabad High Court.
ii The matter the subject of his petition is still pending final disposal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
iii The impeachment motion is possibly still being considered in Parliament and should hopefully be introduced in the Monsoon Session.
Iv All the while, the Bar Associations have continued to investigate the ethical and constitutional ramifications of precisely these matters throughout India.
Conclusion
The Justice Yashwant Varma case is much more than a case about a judge and undisclosed cash; it is a test of the self-regulation and transparency of the Indian Judiciary and ultimately a test to restore the people’s faith in our Institutions. The way this matter will conclude – by way of impeachment, judicial orders or internal sanction, will likely be a pivotal moment in accountability in the judiciary moving forward.
istent with the theory of public figures often having to accept critical commentary directed at them and taking a more lenient approach to metaphorical political speech.
About Author
Asmi Basu, a fifth-year, ninth-semester, Int. BBA LL.B (H.), law student at the Department of Juridical Science, JIS University, Kolkata, demonstrates a developing expertise in legal writing, with a keen interest in the dynamic legal environment. Her areas of focus include Criminal Laws, Human Rights, Women and Child Laws, Corporate Law, Property and Land Laws, and Constitutional Law and remedies. Ms. Basu is committed to leveraging her writing to advocate for social issues that warrant focused attention from relevant authorities.