The case involving Justice Yashwant Varma has emerged as one of the most serious allegations of judicial misconduct in recent years, centering around the recovery of a large amount of burnt cash from his official residence and his inability to explain its origin.
Key Facts from the Inquiry Report:
-
Incident: A fire broke out on March 14 at Justice Varma’s residence at 30-Tughlak Crescent, Delhi, where he was not present.
-
Discovery: Multiple stacks of burnt currency notes, reportedly 1.5 feet high, were discovered in the storeroom, which was found to be under the “covert and active control” of Justice Varma and his family.
-
Presence: 17 individuals, including his daughter, were reportedly present during the night of the incident.
-
Attempted Concealment: After the fire, staff tried to remove the burnt cash, suggesting a possible attempt to tamper with or conceal evidence.
-
Liquor Cabinet: A liquor cabinet placed near the switchboard is believed to have intensified the fire.
-
Initial Notification: Justice Varma’s personal secretary Rajender Singh Karki was the first to inform him and maintained communication throughout the night.
Judge’s Defense:
-
Justice Varma issued a “flat denial” of any wrongdoing and alleged a conspiracy against him.
-
However, the panel found no evidence of outsider involvement, as the storeroom was locked and accessible only to the family.
Findings of the Supreme Court-appointed Inquiry Committee:
-
Justice Varma failed to offer a plausible explanation for the origin of the cash.
-
The presence of the cash and his control over the premises shifted the burden of proof to him, which he did not meet.
-
The committee concluded there is “sufficient substance” in the allegations and that the misconduct is grave enough to warrant impeachment proceedings.
Legal and Political Ramifications:
-
Despite the seriousness of the findings, no FIR has been registered, citing lack of specific criminal information and the judge’s absence.
-
The Supreme Court has declined to order an FIR, leaving the matter to the Central Government.
-
The Centre is reportedly considering bringing an impeachment motion in Parliament, which is a rare and severe step in judicial accountability.
Summary:
This is a deeply troubling case where a sitting High Court judge is under a cloud of serious misconduct involving unaccounted wealth, possible evidence tampering, and failure to cooperate with investigative mechanisms. With the Supreme Court taking a cautious stance and deferring to the executive, all eyes are now on the Central Government and Parliament, which may soon face the politically and constitutionally sensitive task of initiating impeachment proceedings against a serving judge.
