Justice Yashwant Varma moves Supreme Court against panel report

Sitting High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, is reported to have approached the Supreme Court against the report of an in-house inquiry committee constituted by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna concluding that unaccounted cash was found in a gutted storeroom at his official residential premises after a blaze on March 14-15.

Justice Varma has challenged a subsequent communication by Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) to the President and Prime Minister recommending his removal from the office of judge as unconstitutional.

The May 3 report of the three-judge committee had been confidentially forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister by Chief Justice Khanna days before his retirement on May 13 after Justice Varma had refused to voluntarily resign from office.

Justice Varma’s case has not been numbered or listed for hearing in the Supreme Court, and is the first by a sitting High Court judge. It comes days before the Monsoon session of the Parliament, which may see the introduction of the removal motion.

Justice Varma has contended that the formation of the committee was not based on any statute or the Constitution, thus had no legal basis to recommend his removal from a constitutional office. He contended that the reports were filled with inferences. The Judge said he was subject to intense media speculation and media trial. He was not given a fair hearing and an opportunity to respond to the allegations levelled by witnesses, amounting to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Judge said key questions like the source of cash and what caused the fire were not addressed in the committee report. The judge argued that the letter for his removal was forwarded by the then CJI within hours of receiving the inquiry committee report and without having a personal interaction with him.

The report of the committee, comprising Justices Sheel Nagu, G.S. Sandhawalia and Anu Sivaraman, concluded that Justice Varma and his family members were in “covert or active control” of access into the storeroom where the stacks of half-burnt cash was found. It had noted that the currency notes “seen and found during the process of dousing of fire” were “highly suspicious items” and not of a small value. They could not have been placed in the storeroom without the tacit or active consent of Justice Varma or his family, the report had submitted.

The inquiry committee had refused to accept the version of the judge that he was a target of a conspiracy. It said it would be “well-nigh impossible” to “plant” currency in a high security residential premises of a sitting judge, the panel had reasoned.

The inquiry panel had said “strong inferential evidence” established that the burnt currency was removed by Justice Varma’s trusted staff from the storeroom during the early hours of March 15.

The decision to form the three-judge fact-finding committee was based on a preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on March 21 recommending a “deeper probe” into the allegations.