The Chief Justice of India has constituted a three-member Committee consisting of Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, for conducting an inquiry into the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge of the High Court of Delhi.
For the time being, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi has been asked not to assign any judicial work to Justice Yashwant Varma. “The enquiry conducted by me, prima facie, does not reveal possibility of entry or access to the room by any person other than those residing in the bungalow, the servants, the gardeners and CPWD personnels, if any,” Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya said in a letter to Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Chief Justice of India on March 21, 2025.
Justice Varma refutes the allegations
“In the life of a judge, nothing matters more than reputation and character. That has been severely tarnished and irreparably damaged,” Justice Yashwant added, “The baseless allegations that have been levelled against me have proceeded on mere innuendos and an unproven assumption that the cash allegedly seen and found belonged to me.”
Justice Yashwant Varma has denied knowledge of any money or cash lying in the outhouse storeroom. “Neither I nor any of my family members had any knowledge of cash nor does it have any bearing or relation with me or my family,” he added.
In-house Enquiry
The examination of allegations related to misconduct is a significant part of setting accountability and maintaining public confidence on the judiciary. “The judiciary serves as the guardian of constitutional values, and any allegations of corruption or misconduct by a judge strike at the very foundation of public trust,” said Rohit Jain, Managing Partner, Singhania & Co.
Rohit Jain highlights the grounds on which in-house inquiry can be sought. “To uphold judicial integrity and maintain institutional credibility, the Supreme Court initiates in-house inquiries in cases involving serious allegations such as corruption, abuse of judicial office, moral impropriety, or any conduct unbecoming of a judge,” he adds.
In May 1997, the Supreme Court’s full court adopted the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life – a code of conduct for judges – along with an “in-house procedure” for remedial action against judges who breach these principles. “This in-house mechanism, formalized in 1999, allows the judiciary to examine misconduct allegations internally, preserving judicial independence while ensuring accountability,” said Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.
The procedure empowers the CJI to take up complaints against Supreme Court Judges or CJs of respective High Courts are empowered to take up complaints against judges of their own courts. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or respective High Court will seek a written response from the judge against whom the complaint is made.
The inquiry will only be taken when the written response is not satisfactory. It will culminate after the submission of a report suggesting final action against the respective judge of the court.
Earlier cases
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris highlighted the case of Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court and Justice Nirmal Yadav of Punjab & Haryana High Court. He notes that the enquiry was led by CJI K G Balakrishnan in 2007 against Justice Soumitra Sen, founding him to be guilty of misappropriation of public funds he received as a receiver appointed by the High Court resulting in his resignation.
He also highlights the case of Justice Nirmal Yadav, the matter was related to a briefcase being mysteriously delivered to another judge instead of Justice Nirmal Yadav resulting in the prosecution.
Rohit Jain, Managing Partner, Singhania & Co. notes down the case related to Justice P.D. Dinakaran of the Sikkim High Court, who faced allegations of land grabbing and impropriety, leading to an inquiry and his subsequent resignation.
He also adds the case of Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court in which impeachment proceedings were undertaken. The matter was related to financial irregularities in 1993, although the motion fell through due to political considerations.
Judge cash row
The matter relates to the fire breaking out in the storeroom situated near the staff quarters of Justice Yashwant Verma’s official residence on the intervening night of 14/15 March 2025. The room was allegedly used to store articles such as unused furniture, bottles, crockery, mattresses, used carpets, old speakers, garden implements as well as CPWD material.
The officials reportedly discovered cash in the storeroom after his family members called in firefighters and the police to douse the fire.
“I state unequivocally that no cash was ever placed in that storeroom either by me or any of my family members and strongly denounce the suggestion that the alleged cash belonged to us,” said Justice Yashwant Verma in his written response.
Rohit Jain, Managing Partner, Singhania & Co. emphasised that the ongoing in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Verma, following the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his residence, reflects the Supreme Court’s unwavering commitment to maintaining the highest standards of judicial conduct. “Through such inquiries, the judiciary not only safeguards its own credibility but also reinforces the public’s faith in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system,” he added.
