Cash Discovery Case: – The Supreme Court has announced its decision to constitute a dedicated bench to hear a petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, currently serving in the Allahabad High Court, who has challenged the findings of an in-house inquiry panel that found him guilty of serious misconduct in the infamous cash discovery case.
Justice Varma Challenges In-House Panel Findings
Justice Varma filed a plea seeking to invalidate the inquiry report and to quash the May 8 recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, which called for impeachment proceedings against him. The report had concluded that Justice Varma and his family exercised covert or active control over a store room where a large amount of half-burnt cash was discovered—allegedly pointing towards misconduct serious enough to warrant his removal from office.
Supreme Court Responds: Bench Will Be Constituted
The matter came up for urgent listing before a bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, pressed for an early hearing, stating that the petition raised substantial constitutional issues.
“We have raised some constitutional issues. I request your lordships to list it as early as possible,” said Sibal during the hearing.
In response, CJI Gavai clarified that he would not personally take up the case, citing his prior involvement in the process.
“It might not be proper for me to take up the matter as I was also a part of the process. We will take a call and constitute a bench,” said the Chief Justice.
Justice Varma Alleges Violation of Fair Trial Principles
In his plea, Justice Varma argued that the inquiry process was biased, alleging that it reversed the burden of proof—effectively forcing him to prove his innocence rather than the panel proving guilt. The judge further claimed that the investigation followed a preconceived narrative, prioritizing speed over procedural fairness and a just hearing.
According to the petition, the inquiry panel:
- Delivered its findings without a full and fair hearing.
- Relied on circumstantial control over the property.
- Set unrealistic deadlines, pressuring for a swift conclusion at the cost of due process.
Details of the In-House Investigation
The three-judge panel, led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, conducted a 10-day inquiry, examined 55 witnesses, and personally inspected the scene of the accidental fire that led to the cash discovery.
The fire broke out at 11:35 p.m. on March 14 at Justice Varma’s official Delhi residence, then serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court. After this incident, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court.
The report concluded that Justice Varma’s involvement and control over the premises where the cash was discovered made him culpable of misconduct under judicial standards.
Following the findings, then CJI Sanjiv Khanna sent a formal communication to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending impeachment proceedings against the judge—a rare and serious move in India’s judicial history.
Constitutional Questions Awaiting Supreme Court’s Answer
Justice Varma’s case is now seen as a significant constitutional test for judicial accountability. His legal team argues that the process violated natural justice, and the verdict could set a precedent for how in-house inquiries into judges are handled in the future.
The Supreme Court bench, once formed, will delve into whether the inquiry’s method, timeline, and conclusions meet the standards of fairness, due process, and constitutional protection afforded to judges.
The unfolding legal battle in the cash discovery row involving Justice Yashwant Varma has caught national attention. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear his plea, key questions surrounding judicial transparency, constitutional integrity, and individual rights within the judiciary remain in focus. The outcome could impact not just one judge, but the very framework of judicial accountability in India.