The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it would set up a bench to hear the plea of Justice Yashwant Verma, High Court of Allahabad, which challenges the legal validity of the in-house inquiry committee, which confirmed allegations of recovery of cashless cash from its official residence in Delhi.
Former Delhi High Court Judge Justice Verma, who is facing an impeachment motion after investigating allegations of cash found at his official residence in New Delhi, moved to the Supreme Court on 18 July. Justice Verma called the in-house investigation mechanism, which blamed him to “a parallel, additional constitutional mechanism”.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who led a team of lawyers, mentioned the argument on behalf of Justice Verma before a back, headed by Chief Justice Bra Gawai of India. “We have raised some constitutional issues. We request your Lordship to list it as soon as possible.”
“I have to constitute a back. I think it would not be appropriate for me to raise that case because I was part of that conversation. I will just take a call and form a bench,” CJI Gawai said.
In his petition, Justice Verma said, “Mainly, the in-house process, through the full court proposal of 1999, extends beyond the desired realm of self-regulations and facts, unjustly, while maintaining public belief to handle complaints against judges and maintain judicial freedom”.
“By completing the recommendations to remove from the constitutional office, it creates a parallel, additional-constitutional mechanism that is insulted by the compulsory outline under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which especially calls the 1968 special forces to remove judges of High Courts in Parliament through a special majority to remove judges of High Courts in Parliament through a special majority.
The argument said that administrative or self-regulation procedures adopted by the Supreme Court “can not bypass or override the constitutionally protected tenure of the High Court judges or the honorable CJI along with the irregular authority can act as a surbitter to act as the fate of other judges of the High Courts.
The story continues below this advertisement
The petition also questioned the Supreme Court’s decision that it publicly shows the burnt currency notes as “inequality and violation of law”, showing the burnt currency notes at its residence. It said that this disclosure gave rise to a media test, which was stopped by the Supreme Court in its own decisions.
The petition stated, “The unprecedented public disclosure of these rejected allegations through a press release by this Honorable Court on 22.03.2025 subjected to the petitioner to subjugate the petitioner, resulting in an irreparable damage to his personal reputation and career as a judicial officer.”
Justice Verma also challenged the findings of the report by a three-member in-house judicial panel.
A week after the currency notes at the official residence of Judicial Verma, it was appointed by the Chief Justice of India on 22 March, where the fire broke out on 14 March, the panel included the Chief Justice of Punjab and Justice Sheel Nagu in the Haryana High Court; GS Sandhavalia, Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court; And Anu Shivraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. The panel found credibility in allegations against Justice Verma.
The story continues below this advertisement
With the argument that the findings of the report are more insufficient without any procedure, Justice Verma questioned every resulting action in his argument, which flows from the report, including the CJI’s recommendation.
,
