A file image of Justice Yashwant Varma | Photo Courtesy: www.allahabadhighcourt.in via PTI Photo
| Photo Credit: PTI
The three-member committee of High Court judges on Tuesday (March 25, 2025) began its in-depth inquiry into allegations of “sacks of half-burnt currency” found after dousing a fire in a storeroom at the Tughlak Crescent residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, who has been taken off judicial work and recommended for transfer to the Allahabad High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium.
The committee of Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Judge, Justice Anu Sivaraman, visited the residence premises of Justice Varma for a little over half-hour as part of a second and a more intensive stage of the probe into the allegations.
Justice Varma’s response, which was part of the documents published by the Supreme Court along with a video and photographs, said the “gutted room remains in that state even today”.
Similarly, a report submitted by the Registrar-cum-Secretary of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice described the state of the room after the fire.
The High Court official, despatched by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya on March 15 evening, the day after the blaze on March 14, said he was accompanied by Justice Varma and his personal secretary during a 10-minute inspection of the room.
“On reaching there, I found out that it was completely dark inside the room and the walls had developed cracks. We all took out our mobile phones and switched on the torch to have a look inside the room. We saw all the walls were blacked out due to fire and some material was hanging from the roof and half-burnt articles were lying there and burnt articles/debris were lying on the floor. After spending 8-10 minutes in the room, we all came out,” the official recounted in his report to the Delhi Chief Justice on March 16.
Justice Varma also mentions the inspection in his response, adding that “no currency was either found nor was any cash in any state seen present on site” at the time.
However, the Chief Justice Upadhyaya’s enquiry report of March 21, recording his prima facie opinion for deeper probe to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, referred to a mention in a report of the incident by the Delhi Police Commissioner that a security guard at the residence had seen “half-burnt articles and debris” being removed on the morning of March 15.
Countering this point, Justice Varma said in his response on March 22 that “I have made my own enquiries from the staff present who have also stated that there was no ‘removal’ of currency which was allegedly found at the site or removed from the premises. The only thing which was cleared was debris and what they considered to be salvageable. That is still present in the house and can be seen kept apart in one part of the residence”.
Three questions
The inquiry committee would endeavour to dive deep into these claims and counters, especially involving the alleged removal of articles from the room and whether the room was freely accessible to all or usually kept locked. The committee may dig deeper into the three questions put forth by the CJI during the preliminary probe, that is, how does Justice Varma account for the money allegedly found in the room; the source of the money; and who removed it from the room on March 15.
The in-house procedure was devised keeping in mind the sensitivity of conducting a probe into allegations against a sitting judge, the individual integrity of the parties and the preservation of institutional reputation. Even though the three-member committee is at liberty to devise its own procedure, there is an inherent requirement that it must follow the rules of natural justice while probing the authenticity of the allegations.
“Not only would the judge concerned have a fair opportunity to repudiate the allegations levelled against him, even the complainant would have the satisfaction that the investigation would not be unfair. The ‘in-house procedure’ was devised to ensure exclusion of favouritism, prejudice or bias,” the Supreme Court had explained in its 2014 judgment in Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ versus Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Published – March 25, 2025 09:44 pm IST