The Supreme Court questioned Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea challenging an inquiry report that recommended his impeachment over burnt cash found at his residence. The court raised concerns about his participation in the inquiry and the parties named in the petition.
In a fresh twist to the high-profile cash haul row, the Supreme Court of India has raised serious questions about a plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging an impeachment motion against him. The apex court has now listed the matter for hearing on July 30, setting the stage for what could be a significant legal precedent concerning judicial conduct and constitutional safeguards.
🧾 Background: What is the Cash Haul Row?
The case traces back to an alleged unaccounted cash recovery involving associates linked to judicial offices, sparking a political and legal firestorm. While no formal charges have been proved, the incident triggered public demands for judicial accountability and transparency.
As a result, an impeachment motion was tabled against Justice Yashwant Varma, citing ethical violations and lack of disclosure.
⚖️ Justice Varma’s Petition: Challenging the Motion
In response, Justice Varma approached the Supreme Court, calling the impeachment move “malicious, politically motivated, and unconstitutional.” His petition asserts:
No direct involvement in the incident
Violation of natural justice
Potential threat to judicial independence
The plea further seeks a stay on any parliamentary proceedings until the Supreme Court hears and rules on the matter.
🏛️ SC’s Observation and Listing for July 30
During the preliminary hearing, the Supreme Court bench questioned:
The maintainability of the petition at this stage
The timing of the move amid ongoing investigations
Whether internal judicial mechanisms were adequately exhausted
However, it did not dismiss the plea and instead posted the matter for hearing on July 30, signaling the issue’s legal gravity.
🗣️ Why This Matters
This case has reignited debates on:
Judicial accountability vs. judicial independence
Limits of legislative power in impeachment
Scope of judicial review in constitutional matters
Legal experts say the outcome could have far-reaching implications for future judicial proceedings and the process of disciplining sitting judges.
📌 Key Takeaways
Justice Yashwant Varma challenges impeachment motion in SC
SC questions timing and maintainability, sets hearing for July 30
Case reignites concerns over judicial ethics and constitutional checks
Final verdict may redefine boundaries between judiciary and legislature
