A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih on 7 August 2025 have upheld the constitutionality of the in-house procedure in the Justice Yashwant Varma as having legality under Article 141 of the Constitution and Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act. A fire breakout at the bungalow of the petitioner Allahabad HC judge resulted in the detection of burned currency notes, which entailed a confidential investigation under the Supreme Court’s “In-house Procedure.”

The petitioner had challenged the procedural fairness of the investigation after the committee, having found substance in the allegations, recommended further action by an inquiry report. Mr. Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioner called it a violation of Articles 14 and 21, considering the public release of the incriminating photograph/video footage. 

The Court referred to the precedent in the C. Ravichandran Iyer case and reaffirmed that the evolution of the law post the judgement has consistently upheld the in-house mechanism of discipline as self-regulation by this Court. The ruling in the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability cannot be read as limitation on the powers and responsibilities of the Chief Justice of India, especially in matters concerning internal judicial discipline and preservation of institutional integrity. The bench recognized that there is a constitutional silence on internal mechanisms but that does not prohibit judicial innovation that has stood the test of time. 

Questioning why the petitioner delayed from objecting to the publication of the photographs of video footage, the Court also mentioned that the same is not a procedural requirement nor is it proper. Though it does not give rise to any benefits to the petitioner at this stage. The Petitioner should not have waited for completion of the fact- finding inquiry set in motion by the CJI before challenging the footage. 

Section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, while Section 3(1) grants judges immunity from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in the discharge of judicial functions. This immunity is subject to proceedings initiated by the Central Government, State Government, the Supreme Court, any High Court, or any other legally empowered authority under “any law for the time being in force.” as per Section 3(2) of the Act. The procedure stems from the scope of power defined in Article 141 of the Constitution. The in-house inquiry is itself not a removal mechanism but a preliminary fact-finding process, and the Parliament continues to have the intact and unfettered constitutional power for removal of a judge.