NEW DELHI – On Wednesday, July 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India put off making a decision on a case submitted by Justice Yashwant Varma, who is fighting the proposal made by then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to remove him from his position as a judge. The highest court made it clear that the CJI is “not just a post office,” but a constitutional official who must protect the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih heard a lot of arguments over Justice Varma’s request, which criticized then-CJI Khanna’s May 2025 suggestion to the President and Prime Minister. This proposal came after an internal panel found “strong inferential evidence” that Justice Varma was involved in the seizure of sacks of burned money at his official home in Delhi in March 2025.
CJI’s Power and the Integrity of Institutions
The judges fully backed the CJI’s power in these kinds of cases during the hearing. “The Chief Justice of India should not be just a post office. As the head of the judiciary, he has a duty to the country. Justice Datta reminded senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who was representing Justice Varma, that if the CJI decides that the offense is serious enough to demand a certain course of action, we will support the CJI’s power to do so.
The Court further pointed out that the Judges’ Protection Act gives the CJI the right to take “all non-punitive steps against the judges for maintaining institutional integrity,” especially Section 3(2). The bench said, “In your case, there is no clear violation of the in-house procedure.” The then CJI [Sanjiv Khanna] did what was asked of him.
Concerns about Justice Varma’s Behavior
The bench was also worried that Justice Varma only went to court after the in-house investigation was over and the bad report was made. “You could have fought it sooner.” Your behavior there does not make me feel safe. We didn’t want to say anything, but your behavior hasn’t been good. You agreed to the procedure. Why did you come? The Court said, “You knew it could lead to an outcome not good for you.”
Justice Varma, who was a judge on the Delhi High Court at the time, lost his job as a judge in March after the burned money was found. The then CJI then started an internal investigation that ended with the recommendation for his removal. Later, Justice Varma was sent back to the Allahabad High Court.
Arguments on the legality of the recommendation
Kapil Sibal, who was speaking for Justice Varma, made it clear that his plea did not question the in-house probe itself, as long as it followed the rules of natural justice, nor did it question the CJI’s power to take a judge under inquiry off the job. His main point was that the in-house committee’s recommendation for removal was “ultra vires,” meaning that it produced a “extralegal mechanism” that didn’t fit with the constitutional framework for judicial impeachment under Articles 124 and 217.
Sibal said, “The recommendation for removal has to go.” When the CJI recommends removal, it is almost like a death sentence for a judge.
The bench, on the other hand, stressed that Parliament is the one who makes the final decision about a judge’s removal. Parliament is “supposed to act independently” and is “not bound by what the judiciary or the CJI recommends.” The Court said that once Parliament agrees to a move for removal, the judge will have a “full opportunity to demolish the allegations before the inquiry panel established under the Judges Inquiry Act.”
The judges said again that the in-house procedure, which was created through judicial precedent (like the Vishaka case on sexual harassment guidelines, where the Supreme Court set standards without specific laws), has been in place for almost 30 years and is meant to protect the integrity of the courts without violating people’s constitutional rights. They also disagreed with Sibal’s claim that the CJI’s powers are only “moral and ethical.” They said that after looking at Section 3(2) of the Judges’ Protection Act, these powers should now be seen as “moral, ethical, and legal.”
Sibal said that the committee’s findings were unfair to Justice Varma because they didn’t show that the burned money belonged to him. But the court said no, saying, “That was not the issue before the committee…”Let the government make the decision. The committee didn’t care if it was your money or not. “Don’t make us say anything about the report.”
Sibal and senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi also said that Justice Varma’s rights to natural justice were breached because the then-CJI did not let him cross-examine witnesses or have a direct hearing. The court, on the other hand, said that the in-house procedure doesn’t allow for cross-examination and that these kinds of procedural loopholes can’t change the preliminary report because Parliament has the last word.
The Supreme Court has now reserved its decision, which is likely to make clear the legal status of the in-house inquiry mechanism and the CJI’s authority to start removal procedures against a judge.