Cash discovery row: CJI Khanna sends inquiry panel report on Justice Yashwant Varma to President, PM Modi

CJI encloses Justice Yashwant Varma’s response to the panel report; the development indicates that Justice Varma has refused to resign or retire voluntarily

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister the in-house committee report on allegations about the discovery of partially burnt sacks of currency notes in a gutted storeroom of High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma’s earlier official residence in Delhi after a fire on March 14.

The CJI’s action paves the way for the initiation of removal proceedings against Justice Varma in the Parliament.

The Chief Justice has also enclosed, in his communication to the President and the Prime Minister, the response received from the judge on May 6 to the panel report.

The move indicates that the inquiry committee of Justices Sheel Nagu, G.S. Sandhawalia and Anu Sivaraman, constituted by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on March 22 to conduct an in-depth probe into the incident, have found sufficient material for the removal of the judge, who was transferred to the Allahabad High Court after the incident.

Based on SC judgment

According to the in-house procedure, elucidated in the Additional District and Sessions Judge versus Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya Pradesh judgment in December 2014, the panel report is sent to the President and the Prime Minister if the judge in question refuses the CJI’s advice to resign his office or opt for voluntary retirement.

The 2014 judgment had explained that the CJI would make it clear in his communication to the President and the Prime Minister that he had chosen to write to them “because allegations against the judge had been found by the inquiry committee to be so serious as to warrant the initiation of proceedings for removal”.

The Constitution mandates that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can be removed by an order of the President after a successful motion for removal and subsequent proceedings on the grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.

Under Article 217 of the Constitution, the motion to remove the judge must be supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament. A special majority is a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. The same procedure of removal applies to Supreme Court judges under Article 124.

The three-member inquiry committee was constituted on the basis of a preliminary enquiry report submitted by Delhi High Court Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya recommending a “deeper probe” into the allegations against Justice Varma.

Incidentally, Justice Varma had himself written to Chief Justice Upadhyaya, welcoming a deeper inquiry into the “huge” stash of half-burnt cash found in a storeroom which was not part of the main residential home of the judge. The judge was away in Bhopal at the time of the fire.

Justice Varma had alleged that a conspiracy was afoot to malign his reputation. He had asserted that neither his family nor his staff were shown the so-called sacks of burnt currency. He had said the storeroom was accessible to one and all. He had strongly rejected “the insinuation” that his staff or family had “removed any article, currency or cash in any form” from the storeroom.

The whereabouts of the remnants of the burnt currency — whether it was seized or not — was not mentioned in the Delhi HC Chief Justice’s published report.

Published - May 08, 2025 05:55 pm IST