Yashwant Varma Case: How the In-House Inquiry Process Works Against Sitting High Court Judges in India

Introduction

In March 2025, the Indian judiciary was rocked by a major controversy when a blaze at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court resulted in the revelation of a huge quantity of unaccounted cash. The incident prompted an in-house investigation, a procedure meant to probe allegations of impropriety against incumbent judges without outside interference. The Justice Varma case illustrates how this mechanism operates in India’s judicial system and raises issues of transparency, accountability, and judicial independence.

The Case of Justice Yashwant Varma

A fire occurred at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence in Delhi on March 14, 2025. As firefighters struggled to contain the fire, they allegedly discovered huge piles of money within the house. Early reports in the media indicated that the figure might be as much as ₹15 crore, although this was not confirmed through official statements. The revelation of such a huge amount of money raised eyebrows about corruption and ethical impropriety within the judiciary. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) wasted little time in noting this issue, resulting in the opening of an in-house inquiry to investigate the allegations.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

The In-House Inquiry Process

The in-house inquiry process is a mechanism created by the judiciary to deal with allegations of misconduct against judges within the house. The system allows judicial independence to be preserved while still keeping judges accountable for any misconduct. The process starts when a complaint or credible information regarding misconduct is brought to the notice of the Chief Justice of India. If the allegations seem serious, the CJI can initiate an internal inquiry.

To carry out the inquiry, a committee is constituted, which is usually composed of three senior judges. The committee makes an inquiry into the case by going through evidence, questioning the accused judge, and taking testimonies. The accused judge is provided an opportunity to present their side of the case, ensuring natural justice principles are maintained. After the inquiry is over, the committee presents its report to the CJI. If there is evidence of misconduct, the judge is asked to resign or go on voluntary retirement. If the judge declines, the CJI can suggest that the government proceed further, up to and including halting the judge from conducting cases. In extreme situations, the case can be sent to Parliament for initiation of impeachment proceedings.

Application of the In-House Inquiry in Justice Varma’s Case

Following the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma becoming public, India’s Chief Justice established a three-member panel to carry out an in-house investigation. Before the outcome of the inquiry, Justice Varma was withdrawn from his judicial responsibilities to make sure that the investigation was just and transparent. The administration soon afterward declared his transfer from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court. The transfer was perceived as a measure to avoid exerting any influence on the investigation in progress.

Challenges and Concerns

The in-house inquiry process has been criticized for its opacity. As these hearings are private, the public does not know the specifics of the investigation. This has raised fears that judges might not always be held accountable in a manner that generates public trust. In Justice Varma’s situation, calls were made by legal professionals and civil society organizations for more openness in the process.

Another problem with the in-house inquiry process is its efficacy. Although it gives a means to investigate misconduct in-house, it does not necessarily lead to vigorous disciplinary action. In certain previous instances, judges who have faced serious charges have been permitted to resign quietly rather than being removed or prosecuted. This has attracted criticism that the judiciary shields its own members rather than maintaining firm accountability.

The Role of Judicial Independence

One of the primary reasons for conducting the in-house inquiry process is to safeguard judicial independence. The Indian judiciary has always insisted that it should not be under the influence of external agencies, particularly the executive of the government. If judges were being probed by agencies like the police or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), it may result in political interference and undermine judicial autonomy. The in-house inquiry process enables the judiciary to regulate itself without being dependent on the government. This, however, implies that there is no outside check on how impartially these inquiries are held.