The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to list for early hearing the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the preliminary findings recorded by a three-judge inquiry committee that has recommended his impeachment over the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash from his Delhi residence.

Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, however, said he would recuse from the bench to avoid conflict of interest. The CJI, sitting on a bench with Justices Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, orally told lawyers led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma: "I think it will not be possible for me to take up the matter because I was part of the conversation…"

CJI Gavai indicated that as the then second seniormost judge of the Supreme Court and a member of the collegium, he had been part of the decision, along with then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, recommending the removal of Justice Varma by Parliament.

Besides Sibal, senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, criminal lawyer Sidharth Luthra and senior advocate Sidharth Agarwal are representing Justice Varma. The senior lawyers stood along with Sibal, requesting an urgent hearing.

Sibal told the bench that the petition raises several vital questions involving the interpretation of the Constitution.

"I request your lordships to list the matter as soon as possible," he told the CJI, prompting Chief Justice Gavai to say: "I will have to constitute a bench. We will take the call and constitute the bench." But no specific date was fixed for the hearing.

Justice Varma, who was recently relieved of his judicial duties following the discovery of alleged illegal cash from his official residence in Delhi, had moved the Supreme Court challenging as unconstitutional and arbitrary the preliminary findings recorded by the three-judge inquiry panel that had prima facie held him guilty of the offence and recommended his impeachment by Parliament. He had also said the proposal was contrary to law and principles of natural justice.

In his writ petition filed before the Supreme Court, Varma has contended that he was innocent but had been subjected to a media trial, and his reputation and dignity had been gravely affected because of the findings recorded by the panel being made public by the Supreme Court.

According to Justice Varma, the decision of Justice Khanna to constitute the panel was at the threshold illegal because there was no provision for such a panel, as only Parliament is vested with the power to initiate impeachment proceedings against a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court. He argued that the panel did not give him a fair opportunity to put forth his side.