Burning Cash Discovery and Judicial Inquiry
A fire erupted at Justice Varma’s outhouse in Lutyens’, New Delhi, on the night of 14 March 2025, during his tenure at the Delhi High Court. Firefighters and police on the scene found sacks of partially burnt ₹500 notes, with first responders capturing the disturbing scene on video. The blaze sparked an in-house probe led by three senior judges appointed by then‑Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.
The panel, convened on 22 March, conducted a ten-day inquiry involving 55 witnesses, electronic evidence and site visits, delivering its 64-page report on 3 May. The report concluded that although direct proof was missing, “strong inferential evidence” pointed to Justice Varma’s “covert or active control” over the storeroom where the money was found, deeming this a breach of judicial integrity meriting impeachment.
Varma’s Legal Objections
In his writ petition filed on 18 July, Justice Varma contends the inquiry process trampled on his rights. He argues the committee reversed the burden of proof, demanding he disprove allegations rather than requiring the panel to establish culpability. The judge claims the panel did not properly examine critical facts such as ownership, source, authenticity, and chain of custody of the cash, but instead rushed to conclusions based on an assumed narrative.
He further asserts that he was denied a fair hearing, that key defence arguments – including suggestions of cash having been planted or the fire set deliberately to implicate him – were dismissed without proper consideration. According to Varma, the panel proceeded in an “outcome-driven” manner, compromising impartiality and undermining the principles of natural justice.
Impeachment Process Gains Parliamentary Momentum
The Supreme Court's panel forwarded its findings to the President and Prime Minister in May, prompting the law minister’s indication that a removal motion would be tabled in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament, starting 21 July. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has reportedly been engaging leaders across party lines to build consensus. The Congress party has already begun collecting MP signatures for such a motion, hinting at a potentially bipartisan push.
Legal scholars point out the rarity and complexity of removing a high court judge under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, requiring supermajorities in both Houses. Only a handful of judges have faced such proceedings, most resigning before a vote. The outcome will test legal and political thresholds set for judicial accountability.
Defence Stance and Political Implications
Justice Varma has consistently denied any knowledge or possession of the cash, alleging a smear campaign. He described the entire chain of events as a “conspiracy” aimed at destroying his reputation. His refusal to resign voluntarily – despite advice from the former CJI – underscores his resolve to contest the allegations.
Political observers highlight the careful navigation required by the government in this matter. The proceedings carry risks of populist backlash and accusations of politicking in judicial affairs. The Opposition’s demands for the full inquiry report reflect concerns over transparency and fairness.
As the Supreme Court considers Varma’s petition, attention turns to whether it will grant an interim stay on impeachment or schedule full hearings. The timing is critical, given Parliament’s imminent session and the potential introduction of a removal motion. Legal experts emphasise that the Court’s response may set precedent on the judiciary’s role in matters of internal misconduct and external parliamentary intervention.
Justice Varma’s case underscores deeper debates about accountability mechanisms within the judiciary. Critics argue the in-house inquiry system lacks robust procedural safeguards, while proponents maintain it preserves judicial independence. The Supreme Court’s verdict on the procedural challenge could be as consequential as the substantive allegations themselves.