CJI Gavai Recuses Himself From Hearing Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea in Cash Discovery Case
New Delhi, July 23 (The Trending People): Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has recused himself from hearing the plea filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who challenged an in-house inquiry panel report that found him guilty of misconduct in connection with a high-profile cash discovery incident.
The announcement was made during a hearing on Wednesday when senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter before the bench headed by CJI BR Gavai, which also included Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi.
CJI Gavai Cites Conflict of Interest
"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," said the Chief Justice, making it clear that he had served on the committee whose report is now under legal scrutiny.
Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, urged the court to list the case for early hearing, arguing that the plea involves significant constitutional questions and the matter is of pressing importance.
Background of the Case
Justice Yashwant Varma, currently serving in the Allahabad High Court, came under legal and political scrutiny following the discovery of large amounts of cash at his official residence. The incident was linked to an accidental fire that broke out around 11:35 PM on March 14 at his then-residence as a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.
Following the fire, a three-judge in-house inquiry panel led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court conducted a comprehensive 10-day investigation. The panel examined 55 witnesses and physically inspected the fire-damaged premises.
The report concluded that Justice Varma had been involved in misconduct, prompting then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna to recommend impeachment proceedings to Parliament in a communication dated May 8.
Impeachment Proceedings Gain Momentum
The impeachment process against Justice Varma gained further traction on Monday as 145 Members of Parliament (MPs) from the Lok Sabha and 63 MPs from the Rajya Sabha formally submitted a petition seeking his removal. The petition was filed under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Indian Constitution.
The motion received bipartisan support, including signatures from notable leaders such as:
- Anurag Thakur
- Ravi Shankar Prasad
- Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition)
- Rajiv Pratap Rudy
- P.P. Chaudhary
- Supriya Sule
- KC Venugopal
Congress MP K. Suresh confirmed his party’s full support for the impeachment, aligning with other INDIA bloc parties.
What the Constitution Says
Under constitutional procedure, a motion to remove a High Court or Supreme Court judge requires:
- The backing of at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs
- Acceptance by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha
Only after this step can the motion proceed to the next stage involving judicial scrutiny and eventual debate in Parliament.
Justice Varma’s Plea: A Constitutional Challenge
In his petition, Justice Varma has requested the Supreme Court to invalidate the in-house inquiry report, arguing it violated due process and fairness. He has also sought to quash the May 8 recommendation for impeachment, calling it premature and unconstitutional.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal indicated the petition raises serious constitutional concerns, including judicial independence and procedural fairness in handling misconduct allegations against sitting judges.
What Happens Next
With CJI Gavai recusing himself due to his earlier involvement in the committee, the matter will now be reassigned to a new bench. The listing of the case is expected soon, depending on the administrative decisions of the Supreme Court registry.
Justice Varma’s case presents a rare instance of parliamentary impeachment procedures being invoked against a sitting High Court judge, a process that has only occurred a handful of times in Indian legal history.
Final Thoughts – The Trending People
The recusal by Chief Justice Gavai adds a new layer of complexity to an already sensitive case involving judicial accountability and constitutional checks on judges. As the Supreme Court prepares to reassign the matter, the coming weeks will be crucial in shaping the debate around judicial ethics, parliamentary oversight, and the future of Justice Yashwant Varma.