Justice Varma cash inquiry: The story so far

Yesterday, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member committee to investigate the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court. A fire had broken out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi on 14 March. Initial reports estimate that close to Rs. 15 crore were found at his residence during the firefighting operation. The figure has not been officially confirmed. 

The members of the inquiry committee are:

1. Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana HC, 
2. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Himachal Pradesh HC, and
3. Justice Anu Sivaraman, judge of the Karnataka HC. 

Notably, the Supreme Court’s 25-page internal inquiry report published on Saturday included pictures and a video of the burnt currency notes found at Justice Varma’s residence. 

For the time being, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been “asked not to assign any judicial work to Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma.” 

The story so far

After news broke of the recovery of the unaccounted cash on Thursday, the Supreme Court Collegium convened and proposed Justice Varma’s transfer to his parent High Court in Allahabad. On Friday, the Supreme Court clarified that the proposal to transfer was “independent and separate from the in-house enquiry procedure.”

CJI Khanna also asked the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, D.K. Upadhyay, to file a report regarding the allegations against Justice Varma. In the report filed on Friday, Chief Justice Upadhyay noted that “the entire matter warrants a deeper probe.”

CJI Khanna sought for Chief Justice Upadhyay to seek a written response from Justice Varma by Saturday 22 March. Specifically, the Chief sought explanations for the three following questions: 

1. How does he account for the presence of money/cash in the room located on the premises of his official residence? 
2. Explain the source of money/cash which was found in the said room. 
3. Who is the person who had removed the burnt money/cash from the room in the morning of 15 March? 

It was also suggested that Justice Varma be asked “not to dispose of his mobile phone” or “delete or modify any conversation, messages or data from his mobile phone(s).”

Justice Varma, in his response, denied all allegations. He wrote:

“I state unequivocally that no cash was ever placed in that storeroom either by me or any of my family members and strongly denounce the suggestion that the alleged cash belonged to us. The very idea or suggestion that this cash was kept or stored by us is totally preposterous. The suggestion that one would store cash in an open, freely accessible and commonly used storeroom near the staff quarters or in an outhouse verges on the incredible and incredulous…”

He also wrote that the allegations against him were based on “mere innuendos and an unproven assumption” and had “scarred” his reputation. 

Supreme Court’s in-house procedure

In the 1990s, a series of Supreme Court decisions established an in-house mechanism to investigate judicial misconduct. Under this system, the Chief Justice of India can review a complaint and appoint a three-member judicial committee for a fact-finding inquiry.

If the committee finds substance in the allegations, the Chief Justice may impose ‘minor corrective measures,’ such as advising the judge to resign or retire voluntarily. If the judge refuses, judicial work may be withheld. In Justice Varma’s case however, the CJI has already withheld any work allocation to him.

The Constitution allows for a Supreme Court or High Court judge to be impeached through a special majority of Parliament on the ground of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” . Impeachment proceedings against sitting High Court or Supreme Court judges have been initiated sparingly. 

This is not the first time CJI Khanna has initiated an in-house inquiry against a sitting High Court judge. Earlier this year, Justice Hrishikesh Roy confirmed to the media that the Chief had initiated an in-house inquiry against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court for allegations of hate speech. 

The Supreme Court’s next steps in Justice Varma’s case could potentially further clarify the process that plays out when a sitting judge is accused of misconduct.