The Supreme Court’s in-house panel that investigated the presence of charred currency notes in justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence in Delhi earlier this year concluded that while there may be no direct proof linking the high court judge to the stash, “strong inferential evidence” suggests his “covert or active control” over the cash, which “belied the trust” reposed in him as a constitutional court judge. Justice Yashwant Varma (PTI)

This, the panel said, amounts to serious judicial misconduct, meriting initiation of impeachment proceedings.

In its 64-page report submitted to then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on May 3, the three-judge panel found the conduct of justice Varma to be incompatible with the standards expected of a member of the higher judiciary, saying his actions, omissions and explanations did not inspire confidence and undermined public trust.

“The very existence of judicial office is founded upon the trust of the citizens. Any deficiency in this regard erodes public trust,” the committee noted in its report, accessed by HT.

The report added that once it was established that burnt cash was there in his store room, “the burden shifted upon justice Varma” to account for the money by giving a plausible explanation which he failed to do, except projecting a case of flat denial and raising a bald plea of conspiracy.”

It added: “Whether this stashing was done with tacit or explicit consent of justice Varma or his family members is of little significance in the face of larger concept of breach of public trust and property expected of the high constitutional office held by justice Varma.”

The in-house inquiry panel comprised justices Sheel Nagu (then Punjab & Haryana chief justice), GS Sandhawalia (then Himachal Pradesh chief justice) and Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka high court judge). It was set up on March 22 by then CJI Khanna to investigate the findings following the fire.

The revelations come days before the monsoon session of Parliament is set to begin. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha are expected to take up an impeachment motion against justice Varma in the session.

The controversy began on March 14 when a fire broke out at the outhouse of justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. Firefighters reportedly found charred currency notes stuffed in sacks. The chief justice of the Delhi high court, justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, flagged the matter to then CJI Khanna, who constituted a three-judge inquiry committee, which submitted its report on May 3, concluding that justice Varma was liable for misconduct.

On May 8, the Supreme Court issued a press release stating that justice Varma had submitted his response but had reiterated his earlier stand and denied wrongdoing, calling the incident a “conspiracy.”

Justice Varma was subsequently divested of judicial work and transferred to his parent high court in Allahabad. On May 8, a letter by CJI Khanna was also sent to the President and Prime Minister, enclosing the inquiry report and requesting action.

To be sure, justice Varma has denied all wrongdoing and alleged that the inquiry process was “fundamentally unjust” — as reported by this newspaper on June 18. In a letter dated May 6, justice Varma declined the then CJI’s advice, issued in a May 4 communication, to step down or seek retirement, and instead flagged serious violations of procedural fairness. Justice Varma told then CJI Khanna that doing so would mean accepting a “fundamentally unjust” process that denied him even a personal hearing.

Since then, Union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju has confirmed that the government had reached out to the Opposition for support in initiating a motion during the upcoming monsoon session. The motion for his removal is expected to be introduced by law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal.

Vice-President and Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar also questioned the constitutional sanctity of the in-house panel’s findings at a public event on May 19. Calling the process “inconsequential,” Dhankhar advocated a formal criminal investigation instead.

In its report, the panel noted that the store room, which was kept locked, remained under the control of justice Varma’s family and household staff.

Multiple witnesses, including fire service personnel, police officers, and local officials, testified to the presence of significant amounts of currency at the scene. The committee also found that the remnants of cash were surreptitiously removed early on March 15 by members of justice Varma’s personal staff, suggesting deliberate destruction of evidence.

Rejecting justice Varma’s defence that he was being framed and that he had no knowledge of the cash, the panel pointed to his failure and “unnatural conduct” in not lodging a complaint, preserving CCTV footage or providing any plausible explanation for the presence of such cash on his property.

“In the absence of any plausible explanation coming from justice Varma or his family members or for that matter any other witness, this committee is left with no option, but to hold that the trust reposed in him was belied by him by allowing highly suspicious material in the shape of piles of currency notes to be stashed in the store room. Whether this stashing was done with tacit or explicit consent of justice Varma or his family members is of little significance in the face of larger concept of breach of public trust and property expected of the high constitutional office held by Justice Varma,” the panel held.

The panel’s inquiry further revealed that the private secretary to the judge and several members of the domestic staff were directly involved in suppressing material evidence and cleaning the premises soon after the fire team departed.

Concluding its inquiry, the panel stated that there was sufficient substance in the allegations referred to by the CJI in his letter, and that the misconduct found to be proved was grave enough to initiate impeachment proceedings for removal by Parliament.