Judge Challenges Supreme Court's Inquiry Power, Citing Parliamentary Supremacy

NEW DELHI — In an unprecedented legal battle that strikes at the heart of judicial accountability and the constitutional separation of powers, sitting Allahabad High Court judge, Justice YashwantVarma , has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the very mechanism that recommended his removal from office. The writ petition, filed just days before the government is expected to introduce an impeachment motion in Parliament, argues that the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry procedure is a "parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism" that unlawfully usurps the exclusive authority of Parliament.

The move escalates a controversy that began with a fire at Justice Varma 's official residence in March 2025, which led to the alleged discovery of a large amount of unaccounted cash. An in-house committee, constituted by then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna , subsequently investigated the matter and submitted a report that formed the basis for the removal recommendation. Justice Varma , in his plea filed under the pseudonym 'XXX' ( XXX v. Union of India ), not only contests the findings but launches a foundational attack on the procedure's constitutional validity, setting the stage for a landmark constitutional showdown.

---

The Core Constitutional Challenge: Judiciary vs. Parliament

At the center of Justice Varma ’s petition is a direct challenge to the authority of the judiciary to conduct what he terms a "usurpatory" inquiry that culminates in a punitive recommendation for removal. The plea contends that the power to remove a High Court or Supreme Court judge is vested exclusively in the Parliament, governed by a stringent and constitutionally mandated process.

"The Constitution confers no superintendence or disciplinary powers on this Court or the CJI over High Courts or their judges," the petition asserts. It highlights that Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, create a comprehensive and exclusive legislative framework for such actions. This statutory process includes critical safeguards such as the framing of formal charges, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the high standard of "proved misbehaviour" established beyond a reasonable doubt.

In stark contrast, Justice Varma argues, the Supreme Court's in-house procedure operates without these safeguards. His petition states, "The in-house procedure, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office." He argues that this internal mechanism violates the doctrine of separation of powers, a cornerstone of the Constitution's basic structure, by allowing the judiciary to encroach upon a role explicitly reserved for the legislature.

The petition further argues that this process "overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thus erodes judicial independence and public confidence."

---

Allegations of Unfair Process and Pre-Determined Conclusions

Beyond the overarching constitutional questions, Justice Varma ’s plea details a series of procedural grievances, alleging a denial of natural justice and a fundamentally unfair hearing. He claims the three-judge inquiry committee—comprising then-Chief Justices Sheel Nagu and G.S. Sandhawalia , and Justice Anu Sivaraman —acted in a "pre-determined fashion."

Key allegations against the committee's process include:

* Lack of Due Process: The petition states the committee failed to notify Justice Varma of its procedure, denied him the opportunity to provide input on evidence collection, and examined witnesses in his absence.

* Withholding of Evidence: It is alleged that instead of providing video recordings of witness statements, the committee supplied only paraphrased summaries and selectively disclosed only "incriminating" materials, while ignoring requests to collect potentially exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage.

* Reversal of Burden of Proof: Justice Varma contends that the committee impermissibly reversed the burden of proof, placing the onus on him to explain the presence of the alleged cash rather than on the inquiry to establish his connection to it. The committee's report noted that since the storeroom was in his "covert or active control," the burden was on him to offer a plausible explanation beyond a "flat denial or a bald plea of conspiracy."

* Denial of Personal Hearing: The petition claims that former CJI Khanna did not grant Justice Varma a personal hearing after receiving the committee's report, nor was he given an adequate chance to review the document before being asked to resign.

The petition pointedly states that the inquiry's conclusions were based on "unjustified inferences, not evidence." It argues that even if cash were discovered, the committee failed to answer fundamental questions, including its origin, ownership, quantity, and authenticity, or who was responsible for its alleged removal after the fire.

---

Background of the Controversy

The chain of events began on the night of March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out in a storeroom at Justice Varma 's official residence at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi. First responders, including firefighters and police, allegedly discovered and filmed "four to five sacks of half-burnt cash."

The discovery was reported up the chain of command, with the Delhi Police Commissioner informing Union Home Minister Amit Shah and subsequently the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, D.K. Upadhyaya. CJI Upadhyaya conducted a preliminary inquiry and recommended a "deeper probe."

Following this, then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted the three-judge in-house committee. In the interim, Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to his parent Allahabad High Court, and judicial work was withdrawn from him. After the committee submitted its report in May 2025, CJI Khanna advised Justice Varma to resign. Upon his refusal, the CJI forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister, recommending the initiation of removal proceedings. With the Monsoon Session of Parliament scheduled to begin on July 21, the government is reportedly preparing to introduce an impeachment motion.

---

Implications for the Judiciary

Justice Varma 's writ petition represents a critical juncture for the Indian judiciary. The in-house procedure was devised by the Supreme Court itself as an internal mechanism to address complaints against judges for conduct that may not rise to the level of "proved misbehaviour" but is still unbecoming of high judicial office. This case forces the apex court to adjudicate the legality of its own administrative creation.

The core legal question is whether this procedure can co-exist with the formal impeachment process laid out in the Constitution or whether it creates an unconstitutional parallel track that compromises judicial independence. If the Supreme Court upholds Justice Varma ’s arguments, it could dismantle or force a significant overhaul of the system used for judicial accountability for decades. Conversely, if the court validates the in-house procedure, it will solidify the CJI's administrative authority but may face criticism for sanctioning a process with fewer safeguards than the one designed by the legislature.

As the legal community watches closely, the outcome of XXX v. Union of India will have profound and lasting consequences on the standards for judicial conduct, the process for enforcing them, and the delicate constitutional balance between judicial independence and accountability.