SC Dismisses Petition
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, dismissed the petition, stating that Justice Verma’s conduct did not inspire confidence. The court also observed that transparency was maintained in the inquiry process and that the letter written by the former Chief Justice to the President and Prime Minister was not unconstitutional.
The Cash Case
In March 2025, a fire broke out in the storeroom of the government residence of Justice Yashwant Verma, who was then a judge at the Delhi High Court. Reports emerged of burnt cash being recovered after the fire was extinguished. Subsequently, the Supreme Court constituted a three-judge in-house inquiry committee headed by the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Sheel Nagu. The committee, in its confidential report, found Justice Verma guilty of “secret or active control” over the cash, although there was no direct evidence.
Proceedings Against Justice Verma
Based on the inquiry committee’s report, then Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna recommended on 8 May 2025 that impeachment proceedings be initiated against Justice Verma by Parliament. Justice Verma challenged this recommendation and the validity of the inquiry process in the Supreme Court, but the court did not accept any of his arguments.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned Justice Verma’s lawyer, Kapil Sibal, as to why he appeared before the committee if he considered the inquiry process flawed. The court also stated that the inquiry process was entirely in accordance with the rules and that Justice Verma’s conduct was not found to be in line with judicial decorum.
Previous Petition Dismissed
Earlier in March 2025, a petition filed by advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking directions to the Delhi Police to register an FIR against Justice Verma was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The court then stated that the in-house inquiry was underway and that the demand for an FIR at that time was premature.
Further Action Depends on Parliament
This case raises questions about the transparency and accountability of the judiciary once again. The Supreme Court clarified that the judicial process has been followed and that further action in this matter will depend on Parliament or the relevant authorities.
