A Judge Moves Supreme Court Against Former CJI – A Rare Judicial Showdown

In a striking turn of events, where ordinary citizens usually approach courts for justice, this time a sitting High Court judge has approached the Supreme Court – against none other than a former Chief Justice of India. Yes, Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has filed a petition in the apex court challenging former CJI Sanjiv Khanna. The reason? A recommendation that could cost him his judicial seat.

This is not merely a case of alleged corruption or cash recovery. It is an unprecedented open challenge by one judge to the decision-making powers of another – a constitutional tug-of-war questioning judicial integrity, natural justice, and procedural fairness.

Amidst the controversy, speculation arose that the Central Government was preparing grounds for Justice Varma’s impeachment. However, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal issued a categorical clarification:
“The government has no direct role either in the impeachment process or in Justice Varma’s plea before the Supreme Court. This is entirely a matter for the Members of Parliament, not the government,” Meghwal said, stressing that any move by Justice Varma to seek legal remedy was his prerogative.

This raises a critical question: Is this merely a legal battle, or a silent war within the judiciary? Will Justice Varma clear his name, or will the judiciary’s in-house mechanism stand as the final arbiter?

The Background: Allegations, Inquiry, and Firestorm

The controversy stems from an incident at Justice Varma’s official residence, where a fire broke out. When fire officials extinguished the blaze, they allegedly discovered crores of rupees in cash on the premises. Shortly afterward, a video went viral showing bundles of currency burning in flames, sparking a massive public outcry and demands for accountability.

Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna responded swiftly, constituting a three-member in-house inquiry committee under the 1999 “In-House Procedure” – a mechanism created by the Supreme Court to address allegations of judicial misconduct internally. The panel reportedly found Justice Varma guilty, and based on its report finalized on May 3, the then CJI recommended his removal to the President of India. The government was allegedly preparing for impeachment proceedings when Justice Varma struck back with a detailed petition before the Supreme Court.

Justice Varma’s Petition: Five Grounds of Challenge

Justice Varma has mounted a constitutional challenge built on five strong grounds:

1. The In-House Procedure is Extra-Constitutional

According to Justice Varma, the in-house mechanism, framed by the Supreme Court in 1999, operates beyond the constitutional mandate, creating a parallel disciplinary system in violation of Articles 124 and 218, which give Parliament the exclusive power to remove judges through impeachment. He argues that the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, already provides a structured process with adequate safeguards, whereas the in-house system bypasses those protections.

2. Supreme Court and CJI Have No Disciplinary Authority Over High Court Judges

Justice Varma contends that neither the Supreme Court nor the CJI enjoys administrative or disciplinary control over High Court judges under the Constitution.
“Self-regulating procedures like the in-house mechanism cannot override constitutionally guaranteed tenure or confer unchecked authority on the CJI to decide the fate of fellow judges,” his plea asserts, citing separation of powers.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

The judge alleges serious procedural lapses:

• He was not informed about the inquiry committee’s devised procedure.
• He was denied the opportunity to examine evidence or cross-examine witnesses.
• Original evidence, including CCTV footage and detailed financial trail, was allegedly withheld.
  Instead, he received only paraphrased statements.
  Justice Varma argues that the panel failed to conclusively establish whose cash was recovered and how much was actually found.

4. No Opportunity to Review or Respond to the Final Report

The petition claims the report was finalized and acted upon without giving him adequate time to study it or respond. Justice Varma also alleges that he faced pressure to resign or opt for voluntary retirement, presented as a “soft exit,” which in reality was an attempt to avoid a full constitutional removal process.

5. Media Trial Destroyed Reputation

Justice Varma has expressed deep anguish over the Supreme Court’s unprecedented decision to release details of the inquiry into the public domain.
“This subjected me to a media trial, causing irreparable damage to my reputation and judicial career,” the petition states. He further alleges that confidential details were leaked, leading to distorted reporting and public judgment before he could present his defense.

Larger Questions: Judicial Accountability and Transparency

This case is more than one judge defending his honor – it strikes at the heart of the judiciary’s internal accountability system. Does the in-house mechanism truly ensure impartiality, or is it an opaque process shrouded in secrecy? Can any judge, however grave the allegations, be denied a fair hearing and the right to contest evidence?

Justice Varma’s legal battle forces the judiciary to confront a rarely discussed question:
Can a shadow system override the Constitution? Do judges retain their fundamental rights within the system they serve?

As the matter reaches the Supreme Court, the outcome could redefine the contours of judicial discipline, independence, and transparency in India. For now, one thing is clear: the fire that started in a judge’s official residence has sent smoke billowing through the entire judicial establishment.

Key Constitutional References:

• Article 124 & 218 – Removal of Judges
• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 – Statutory framework for judicial discipline.
• 1999 In-House Procedure – Extra-statutory mechanism for internal inquiries.

What’s Your Take?
Should Justice Varma have been given a fair hearing? Was the committee’s report sufficient to recommend removal? Share your views.