The Supreme Court questioned Justice Yashwant Varma’s petition challenging the in-house inquiry into the discovery of currency at his residence, noting his participation in the process. The court highlighted that the inquiry report wouldn’t be binding on the Lok Sabha’s inquiry panel. Additionally, the bench addressed a plea for an FIR against Justice Varma, requesting the inquiry report for review.
⚖️ Why the SC told Varma: “This plea shouldn’t have been filed”
Justice Varma filed a petition (identified as XXX v. Union of India) challenging an in‑house inquiry that found him guilty of misconduct after unaccounted cash was discovered at his official residence in Delhi in March 2025 The Times of India+15LawTrend+15mint+15.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A. G. Masih strongly criticized the petition’s maintainability, stating bluntly: “This petition should not have been filed like this.” Hindustan Times+8LawTrend+8The Indian Express+8
The court questioned why Varma, after participating in the inquiry, waited until after its conclusion to challenge it:
“Why did you appear before the inquiry committee… Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed… Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?” The Times of Indiamint+2The Indian Express+2Hindustan Times+2
Judicial objections also included failure to attach the inquiry report to the petition and improperly naming respondents (including duplicating the Supreme Court) and parties LawTrend+5www.ndtv.com+5Hindustan Times+5.
🧠 Varma’s argument & broader context
Justice Varma contends that the in-house inquiry was “parallel, extra-constitutional”, bypassing the constitutionally mandated framework under Articles 124 and 218 and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 Wikipedia+12The Indian Express+12The Indian Express+12.
He alleges procedural unfairness, a reversal of burden of proof, and argues the Supreme Court improperly allowed public dissemination of incriminating material—including videos of cash burning—resulting in a media trial devoid of legal integrity The Indian Express+1Hindustan Times+1.
🧾 Procedural hurdles ahead
The Supreme Court earlier flagged a significant “maintainability hurdle”: the petition might not even be formally reviewable unless it clears this threshold The Times of India+15LawTrend+15The Times of India+15.
CJI B. R. Gavai has recused himself, and a special bench has been constituted to hear the case — paving the way for a fresh set of judges to consider this challenge Hindustan Times+7Madhyamam+7The Times of India+7.
🗓️ Timeline & next steps
The SC hearing was scheduled for July 28, with the bench expressing strong procedural reservations from the outset mintThe Times of IndiaThe Indian Express.
Follow-up hearing is posted for July 30, where Justice Varma’s counsel may seek to rectify petition defects and file bullet‑point corrections as requested by the SC bench The Economic Times+13mint+13Hindustan Times+13.
🔎 Key procedural concerns (summary)
| Issue | Supreme Court Criticism |
|---|---|
| Filing after participating in inquiry | Undermines his own challenge—appearing before committee weakens later objection |
| Identity & parties in petition | Incorrect naming (e.g., reg. general vs sec. general, Supreme Court duplicated) |
| Failure to attach key documents | Inquiry report should have accompanied the petition |
| Challenging an “in-house” process | Claimed to bypass constitutional process and misallocate burden |
🧭 Why this matters
The in‑house inquiry led to a recommendation by ex‑CJI Sanjiv Khanna to initiate impeachment proceedings in Parliament—a move already underway with 145 MPs signing a notice in Lok Sabha The Times of IndiaThe Indian ExpressThe Times of India+6mint+6The Times of India+6www.ndtv.com+1Hindustan Times+1www.ndtv.com+12The Indian Express+12Hindustan Times+12LawTrend+8www.ndtv.com+8mint+8.
Justice Varma’s plea, both politically and legally charged, puts a spotlight on the tension between internal court mechanisms and the constitutional impeachment process under Articles 124–218.
✅ Bottom Line
The Apex Court has sharply rebuked Justice Varma’s petition as procedurally flawed: you cannot challenge from the outside what you actively participated in. The core legal fight now hinges on whether the petition clears the threshold of maintainability and whether procedural errors can be corrected promptly. With hearing dates set and high scrutiny by the bench, outcome clarity may emerge by July 30 at the latest.
