Cash Row: SC Probe Panel Report Says Misconduct Proved, Proposes Justice Yashwant Varma’s Removal

New Delhi, Jun 19: High court judge Yashwant Varma, and his family members had “covert or active control” over the store room where a huge cache of half-burnt cash was found, proving his misconduct which is serious enough to seek his removal, a report of the inquiry panel probing the incident said.
The three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court conducted the inquiry for 10 days, examined 55 witnesses and visited the scene of the accidental fire that started at around 11.35 pm on March 14 at the official residence Justice Varma, then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and now in the Allahabad High Court.
Acting on the report, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending the judge’s impeachment.
“This committee thus holds that the cash/money was found in the store room of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi officially occupied by Justice Varma. More so, the access to the store room has been found to be within the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members and that by way of strong inferential evidence, it is established that the burnt cash/money was got removed from the store room during the wee hours of 15.3.2025 from 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi,” the panel said in its 64-page report.
The report continued, “Keeping in view the direct and electronic evidence on record, this Committee is firmly of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations raised in the letter of the Chief Justice of India dated March 22, and the misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of Justice Varma…”
The panel threadbare analysed the statements of 55 witnesses including the statement of Justice Varma and rendered its findings under the inquiry procedure laid down by the in-house committee.
Referring to “Restatement of values of Judicial Life” adopted by the Supreme Court in its full court meeting in 1997, the panel said, “It is obvious that all the virtues expected from a Judge are founded upon the concept of probity.”
Probity of a judge is measured by yardstick which is much more stringent than the probity expected of a civil post holder, it said, adding that the element of probity becomes “predominant, relevant and indispensable” when the offices of higher judiciary are in question.
“The expectation of the general public from a member of the superior judiciary is extremely high. Probity is the most important and indispensable attribute of a person holding judicial office and is rather the basic eligibility criteria. Least that is expected of any judicial officer of district or higher judiciary is unimpeachable character and conduct in and outside the courtroom,” it added.
The very existence of judicial office is founded upon the trust of the citizens at large and the quality and quantity of this trust is directly relatable to the behaviour, conduct and performance demonstrated by the judge, not only inside but also outside the courtroom, it said.
“Any deficiency in this regard erodes public trust which ought to be viewed stringently,” it said while recommending impeachment motion against Justice Varma.
Besides Justice Nagu, Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia of Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman of Karnataka High Court, comprised the inquiry panel.
The panel, constituted by former CJI Khanna on March 22, investigated a late-night blaze that broke out at around 11:35 pm on March 14 at the judge’s official bungalow at 30 Tughlak Crescent in the capital.
What began as a routine fire incident has now culminated in serious charges of judicial misconduct and breach of public trust.
Several eyewitnesses, including firefighters and police personnel, told the panel they saw charred stacks of Rs 500 notes scattered across the floor.
One witness described being “shocked” by the sight and said “There was a large pile of cash… I saw it for the first time in my life.”
The panel framed three substantive issues and dealt with them extensively.
“How does Justice Varma account for the presence of money/cash in the room (store room) located in his premises 30 Tughlak Crescent…?” the first issue read.
It asked Justice Varma to explain the source of money which was found in the store room.
“Who is the person who had removed the burnt money/cash from the store room in the morning of March, 15,” the third issue read.
The panel was critical of the testimony of the daughter of Justice Varma, who was home at the time of incident, in its report.
“From the demeanor of the witness, we noticed that she is a confident young woman, having been subjected to hostel life throughout her education apart from being an independent working woman. This belies her statement that she was totally overwhelmed and panicked by the incidents of the fateful night…,” it said.
The panel dealt in detail and rejected the stand of Justice Varma who said the entrance of the store room was constantly monitored by CCTV cameras and was under control of security personnel and it was highly improbable that the cash was kept in the store room. (Agencies)