Supreme Court to Hear Yashwant Varma Plea on In-House Inquiry
Justice Varma Faces Scrutiny Over Discovered Currency Notes; In-House Inquiry Cites Adverse Inferences
Table of Contents
New Delhi: A important controversy has erupted surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, following the accidental discovery of a considerable amount of currency notes at an outhouse of his official residence on March 14. The incident, which occurred during a fire-fighting operation, has led to an in-house inquiry by the Supreme court, with the committee’s findings now forwarded to the President and Prime Minister for further action.
In-House Inquiry Concludes justice Varma’s Conduct “Unnatural”
In the wake of the public outcry, the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, constituted a three-judge committee to conduct an in-house inquiry. The committee, comprising Justice Sheel Nagu (then Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh high Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court), examined the matter thoroughly.
The committee’s report, submitted in May, reportedly termed Justice Varma’s conduct following the discovery of the currency notes as “unnatural.” This assessment, the report indicates, led to certain adverse inferences being drawn against the judge. Justice Varma was afterward repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and his judicial work was suspended pending the outcome of the inquiry.
Committee’s Findings: Cash Found, Explanation Lacking
The inquiry committee’s examination involved examining 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma himself and his daughter. electronic evidence, such as videos and photographs captured by fire brigade personnel, was also reviewed. The committee’s core finding was that cash was indeed discovered within Justice Varma’s official premises.
Crucially, the committee steadfast that the storeroom where the currency was found was within the “covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members.” This led the committee to conclude that the onus was on Justice Varma to provide a satisfactory explanation for the presence of the cash.
However, according to the report, Justice Varma failed to discharge this burden. His explanations were reportedly limited to a “flat denial or a bald plea of conspiracy.” Lacking a plausible justification, the committee found sufficient grounds to recommend action against the judge.
CJI Forwards Report Amidst judge’s Refusal to resign
Following the submission of the committee’s report, CJI Sanjiv Khanna reportedly advised Justice Varma to resign. When Justice Varma declined this advice, the CJI forwarded the inquiry report to the President and the Prime Minister, initiating the process for further action.
The case, identified as XXX v. Union of india | Diary No.38664/2025, now awaits the consideration of the executive authorities based on the findings of the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry. The controversy highlights the rigorous scrutiny faced by members of the judiciary when allegations of impropriety arise.