CJI BR Gavai Recuses from Hearing Justice Yashwant Verma’s Cash Scandal Petition

Key Points

• Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai has recused himself from hearing the plea filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Verma, who is facing misconduct charges in a high-profile cash recovery scandal.
• CJI stated the reason for recusal was his prior role as a member of the committee that indicted Justice Verma.
• A special Supreme Court bench will soon be constituted to hear Justice Verma’s petition.
• Justice Verma’s petition challenges the inquiry committee’s findings and the removal recommendation made by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna.

New Delhi: During a Supreme Court hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Verma, sought urgent listing of the case. Chief Justice Gavai responded:

“It will not be possible for me to take up this matter because I was also part of the committee. We will list it. I will have to constitute a bench.”

The committee, which also included Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, had investigated the cash scandal at Justice Verma’s residence.

Background: The Cash Scandal

• In March 2025, bundles of burnt cash were discovered at Justice Yashwant Verma’s official Delhi residence after a fire.
• An in-house Supreme Court committee, including CJI Gavai, found Justice Verma guilty of misconduct and recommended his removal as a judge.
• Following the committee’s findings, the government is reportedly moving towards impeachment proceedings in Parliament.

Justice Verma’s Petition: What Is He Demanding?

Justice Yashwant Verma has challenged both the findings of the in-house committee and the recommendation for his removal. Key elements of his plea include:

• Declaring the former CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s removal recommendation unconstitutional.
• Invalidating the inquiry committee’s report, alleging it was conducted with a “pre-determined” mindset and violated principles of natural justice.
• Arguing that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his side or challenge the evidence.
• Stating the committee did not investigate ownership of the discovered cash and unfairly reversed the burden of proof onto him.
• Demanding the committee’s process be recognized as extra-constitutional and lacking proper safeguards.

Justice Verma maintains that the discovery of cash alone was insufficient to establish culpability without further investigation into its origin.

What Happens Next?

• Supreme Court Response: The Supreme Court, acknowledging the constitutional and procedural questions raised, confirmed that a new bench would be formed to hear the case. No specific hearing date has yet been set.
• Potential Precedent: Justice Verma’s move is significant as it challenges the in-house judicial inquiry process for sitting judges, a rare development in Indian judicial history.

Summary Table: Timeline and Major Events