Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna determined to make public the reported video proof of money discovered at justice Yashwant Varma’s residence and disclosed the decide’s response with out prior session or any casual dialogue with different collegium members, in response to folks conscious of the event, who added that at the very least two collegium members consider that transfer was “not crucial”.
The Supreme Court docket collegium, which includes CJI Khanna and justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Abhay S Oka and Vikram Nath, was knowledgeable in regards to the reported discovery of money on March 20 — six days after a fireplace incident at justice Varma’s residence on March 14. Nonetheless, the folks cited above indicated that the choice to arrange an in-house inquiry and make the preliminary inquiry report public was made solely by the CJI with out formal or casual deliberations along with his collegium colleagues.
One of many individuals cited above instructed HT that at the very least two collegium judges really feel that making the video and different elements of the preliminary report public was “not crucial” for the reason that in-house inquiry had but to be performed. “Justice shouldn’t solely be executed however appear to be executed,” mentioned this individual, including that these two judges believed that the main points made public ought to have been left to the in-house panel to look at first.
“Concerning the video that exhibits some burnt money piles, they really feel that an unauthenticated video with no attribution or verification needn’t have been made public as a result of it could create a sure impression with out even testing the veracity and supply of that video,” mentioned one other individual conscious of the developments.
Whereas all collegium members agree that swift motion was required to guard judicial integrity, some really feel a extra measured method was warranted. “The aim of the in-house inquiry panel should not grow to be redundant as a result of noise created by making all data public. Each individual deserves a good likelihood to be heard,” mentioned one other supply.
Though the authority to order an in-house inquiry rests solely with the CJI, some collegium members consider that deliberation was crucial earlier than making the preliminary report public. “After having mentioned intimately with the collegium judges when it was determined to repatriate justice Varma to the Allahabad excessive court docket and briefing all of the Supreme Court docket judges on March 21, some members of the collegium really feel that the choice to go public with each minute element of the preliminary inquiry even earlier than the formal inquiry commences ought to have been a matter of deliberation,” one other individual added.
On Saturday, CJI Khanna constituted a three-member in-house inquiry panel to research the allegations regarding reported discovery of money on the Delhi residence of justice Varma. The panel consists of justice Sheel Nagu, chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana excessive court docket; justice GS Sandhawalia, chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh excessive court docket; and justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka excessive court docket.
“The Chief Justice of the Excessive Court docket of Delhi has been directed to not assign any judicial work to Justice Varma,” learn a press release issued by the Supreme Court docket administration on Saturday evening.
This determination adopted a advice by Delhi excessive court docket chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, who suggested an in-house inquiry after analyzing a preliminary report. On Saturday morning, justice Upadhyaya had met with officers from the Delhi Police, Delhi Fireplace Companies (DFS), and the Supreme Court docket’s vigilance division earlier than submitting a further report back to the CJI. This report led to the formation of the inquiry panel.
The controversy stems from a reported fireplace at Justice Varma’s official residence on Tughlak Highway on March 14 at round 11:35 pm. Whereas DFS officers extinguished the hearth inside minutes, first responders—together with DFS personnel and presumably the police—allegedly found stacks of money in a storeroom, a few of which had been reportedly charred. Justice Varma and his spouse had been in Bhopal on the time.
On March 20, the Supreme Court docket collegium unanimously beneficial transferring justice Varma to the Allahabad excessive court docket—his father or mother excessive court docket. Nonetheless, throughout deliberations, at the very least two members argued {that a} mere switch was inadequate and pushed for a direct in-house inquiry. One decide insisted that justice Varma be stripped of judicial work instantly, whereas one other pressed for a proper investigation to make sure institutional accountability.
The matter has additionally sparked reactions from the judiciary and authorized fraternity. The Allahabad excessive court docket Bar Affiliation (HCBA) strongly opposed justice Varma’s switch, questioning whether or not the Allahabad excessive court docket was being handled as a “dumping floor.”
The controversy has additionally resonated in Parliament. Within the Rajya Sabha on March 21, chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar responded to Congress MP Jairam Ramesh’s name for larger judicial accountability by stating that he would discover mechanisms for structured discussions on the problem. Dhankhar appeared to trace at reviving the controversy over the Nationwide Judicial Appointments Fee (NJAC), which was struck down by the Supreme Court docket in 2015.
Justice Yashwant Varma has strongly denied any connection to the money allegedly discovered at his residence, claiming that he’s being framed as a part of a conspiracy to malign him. In his response to the CJI’s queries – which was made public a day in the past, justice Varma wrote: “I unequivocally state that neither I nor any of my relations had saved or saved any money or forex in that storeroom at any level of time. The very concept or suggestion that this money was saved or saved by us is completely preposterous.”
Justice Varma additional argued that the video purportedly displaying burnt money was not an correct illustration of what he had witnessed. “I used to be completely shocked to see the contents of the video since that depicted one thing which was not discovered on web site as I had seen it. It was this which prompted me to watch that this clearly seemed to be a conspiracy to border and malign me,” he wrote. He additionally questioned the timing and authenticity of the allegations, linking them to earlier unsubstantiated accusations towards him on social media in December 2024.
