The Supreme Court has initiated an in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Verma of the Delhi High Court following the discovery of substantial unaccounted cash at his official residence.

This decision came after an extraordinary meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium, which also recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court, his parent court.

The inquiry was triggered after reports emerged that a fire brigade, responding to an incident at Justice Verma’s residence, uncovered significant cash hoards. Fire personnel documented the discovery and escalated the matter to senior authorities, ultimately leading to the intervention of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. In response, CJI Khanna convened a full court meeting on Friday morning, where all Supreme Court judges deliberated on the appropriate course of action.

As part of its internal investigation, the Supreme Court has sought a detailed report from the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya. Initially, the Collegium considered transferring Justice Verma as a disciplinary measure. However, given the gravity of the allegations, the full court unanimously decided that an in-house inquiry was also necessary alongside the transfer.

Under the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure for addressing allegations against sitting High Court judges, the Chief Justice of India first conducts a preliminary review. If the allegations appear credible, a committee comprising three Supreme Court judges is formed to examine the matter. The concerned judge is given an opportunity to respond, and based on the panel’s findings, further action may be recommended.

The process of removing a High Court judge is complex, requiring an impeachment motion passed by both Houses of Parliament—a process that has never resulted in a judge’s removal in Indian legal history. While impeachment proceedings have been initiated in the past, they have always ended with the judge’s resignation before completion.

Justice Verma has not presided over court proceedings since the controversy surfaced, with his staff confirming his absence on leave. Meanwhile, the transfer process is in motion but remains subject to government approval. The case has sparked widespread debate within legal circles, raising concerns over judicial accountability and the mechanisms in place to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.