SC to constitute bench to hear Justice Verma’s plea against in-house committee report

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would constitute a bench to hear the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Verma of the Allahabad High Court, who has challenged both the report of a three-judge in-house inquiry committee and the May 8, 2025 communication by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna recommending his removal from office.

The action stems from the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi on March 14, this year.

Advertisement

“We’ll just take a call and constitute a bench,” Chief Justice B R Gavai, heading a bench also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said in a mention requesting for urgent listing was made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared along with a battery of senior lawyers including Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Siddharth Luthra, Siddharth Aggarwal, and George Pothan Poothicote, among others.

Chief Justice Gavai also said that it might not be proper for him to take up that matter.

Justice Verma’s petition seeks to quash the committee’s report dated May 3 as well as the subsequent recommendation for his removal sent by Justice Khanna on May 8 to the President and Prime Minister. He has alleged that both steps were unconstitutional and violated the principles of natural justice, due process, and the doctrine of separation of powers.

According to the petition, the in-house mechanism adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 was intended for internal ethical oversight and not for initiating removal proceedings. Justice Verma has argued that this protocol has been stretched beyond its legitimate purpose, creating an extra-constitutional pathway that bypasses Articles 124(4), 217 and 218 of the Constitution and the safeguards laid out under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Justice Verma has submitted that the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India does not have disciplinary superintendence over High Court judges, and internal administrative mechanisms cannot override constitutional guarantees of judicial tenure and independence.

Justice Verma has further stated that no formal complaint was made to justify the invocation of the in-house procedure. Instead, the process was triggered by presumptive concerns raised after media reports about cash allegedly found at his residence.

He contended that the committee operated without transparency, denying him notice of the procedure being followed, access to crucial material such as CCTV footage, and witnesses were examined in his absence. He was provided paraphrased versions of their statements and not their verbatim accounts.

Justice Verma’s petition states that the burden of proof was shifted on him — placing on him the onus to establish that the cash did not belong to him — despite no concrete evidence being brought forward about its origin, volume, or linkage to him or his family.

The petition also points to the lack of a personal hearing before the CJI prior to the recommendation for removal and alleges that Justice Verma was merely offered an option to resign or retire within a limited timeline, without a fair opportunity to respond to the committee’s findings.

He also expressed concern over what he termed a “media trial” following selective leaks of the inquiry and its findings, asserting that no steps were taken to preserve the confidentiality of the process — an essential requirement under the in-house mechanism.

The controversy originated on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out in Justice Verma’s then official residence in Delhi. While putting out the fire, personnel from the Delhi Fire Service allegedly found semi-burnt bundles of cash in a storeroom detached from the main residence. Justice Verma was not present at the house during the incident.

Following media reports of the cash discovery, then CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member in-house committee on March 22 to inquire into the matter. The panel comprised Justice Sheel Nagu, then Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court; and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

Soon after the constitution of the committee, Justice Verma was stripped of his judicial responsibilities and subsequently transferred to his parent Allahabad High Court.