The findings of the Supreme Court-appointed inquiry panel into the cash recovery from Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence have exposed deeply troubling issues concerning judicial accountability, integrity, and possible obstruction of justice at the highest levels of the judiciary. Here's a comprehensive breakdown of the panel's conclusions and their implications:
Key Findings:
-
Eyewitness Testimonies & Visual Evidence:
-
At least 10 credible witnesses, including Delhi Fire Service and Delhi Police officials, testified seeing a large pile of ₹500 notes, reportedly stacked up to 1.5 feet high, some of which were half-burnt, inside a storeroom at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence.
-
The panel reviewed videos and photographs taken during the emergency response to a fire in March at the judge’s house, which corroborated these accounts.
-
-
Justice Varma’s Response Termed “Unnatural”:
-
The judge never informed police or judicial authorities about the discovery of cash.
-
He offered no plausible explanation and claimed ignorance—an argument the panel dismissed as “unbelievable”.
-
His failure to report the incident was seen as an effort to conceal or destroy evidence.
-
-
Alleged Interference and Obstruction:
-
Justice Varma’s private secretary, Rajinder Singh Karki, allegedly pressured fire officials to omit references to the cash in their report.
-
A senior fire services official instructed subordinates to drop the matter, suggesting influence from “higher-ups.”
-
The storeroom was reportedly under the exclusive control of the judge’s family, and the cash later disappeared from the scene.
-
-
Role of Family Members:
-
His daughter, Diya Varma, is under scrutiny for possibly helping destroy or clean up evidence.
-
Despite being interviewed, domestic staff denied knowledge, but the panel favored independent testimonies from police and fire personnel over these denials.
-
-
Dismissal of ‘Conspiracy’ Theory:
-
The panel firmly rejected Justice Varma’s defense that he was a victim of a conspiracy, stating that so many independent, real-time observations could not have been fabricated or staged.
-
Panel's Recommendation:
-
The committee concluded that there is “sufficient substance” in the allegations.
-
It recommended the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, highlighting serious concerns about judicial propriety and the destruction of public trust in the institution.
Current Status:
-
Justice Varma has been transferred back to the Allahabad High Court, but assigned no judicial work.
-
He has not resigned nor taken voluntary retirement, instead continuing to call the inquiry “fundamentally unjust.”
Implications:
-
This case may trigger a Constitutional process for impeachment, which would require a motion in Parliament under Article 124(4) or Article 217 of the Constitution (for High Court judges).
-
The scandal is likely to intensify debates around the lack of institutional mechanisms to ensure timely and effective accountability for members of the higher judiciary.
-
It could also lead to scrutiny of judicial appointments and transfers, especially concerning how allegations are handled internally.
This incident underscores an urgent need for reforms in how judicial misconduct is investigated and publicly addressed, to protect the credibility of the Indian judiciary and its constitutional integrity.
