Solicitor appearing for Justice Varma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, urged urgent listing, arguing that the cause touches upon fundamental issues of judicial independence and due process. “We have raised some constitutional issues. If it can be listed as early as possible,” Sibal pressed the bench.
CJI Gavai confirmed his involvement in the proceedings, stating it would be inappropriate for him to preside. “It will not be possible for me to take up this matter because I was also part of the committee. We will list it. I will have to constitute a bench,” he told Sibal.
Justice Varma’s plea challenges a May court‑appointed inquiry that concluded he bore responsibility for the cash found during a fire at his Delhi residence on 14 March. The three-member panel, led by Punjab & Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, examined 55 witnesses and visited the fire‑affected property before affirming the presence of substantial illicit funds under his control.
He is contesting the constitutionality of the in‑house procedure, calling into question its adherence to the Judges Act, 1968, and insisting that serious charges should follow the established parliamentary route for impeachment under Articles 124, 217 and 218 of the Constitution.
The former Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, had forwarded the panel’s findings to the President and Prime Minister on 8 May, recommending impeachment. Justice Varma has asked the Supreme Court to quash both the report and that recommendation.
The petition raises protests about procedural fairness, alleging that Justice Varma was denied the ability to cross‑examine witnesses or access key evidence, some of which was subsequently shared with the media. He describes the public disclosure of video footage showing burnt currency as “ex facie disproportionate” and a violation of the principle of natural justice.
The constitutional and procedural dimension could pose a threshold question of maintainability before the Court can examine substantive merits. Legal analysts suggest the matter will pivot on whether the apex court accepts the petition as valid for full consideration.
Justice Varma retains his position at the Allahabad High Court, but his judicial duties were halted in April amid the ongoing investigation. Those duties had been shifted from the Delhi High Court following the controversy.
Meanwhile, Parliament has received formal notices in both Houses, with 145 Lok Sabha members and 63 from the Rajya Sabha petitioning for impeachment under the constitutional provisions. A motion must receive at least 100 lower house and 50 upper house signatures to proceed.
The Supreme Court’s decision to appoint a fresh bench will determine whether it accepts jurisdiction to revisit an in‑house process that skirts the legislative impeachment framework designed to protect judicial integrity.