NEW DELHI: A petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, seeking to quash an inquiry report over the discovery of sacks of cash at his official residence, may face a tough challenge on the grounds of ‘maintainability’ when it reaches the Supreme Court.
The inquiry report led to then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna recommending that Justice Varma be stripped of his judgeship. However, with the parliamentary monsoon session beginning on Monday, Justice Varma’s petition could lose its relevance if the SC doesn’t list it for hearing before a motion for his removal is tabled in Parliament.
A removal motion for a constitutional court judge requires the signatures of 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the Lok Sabha and 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha. As of now, over 100 MPs have signed such a notice, and the petition could become moot if the SC doesn’t hear it before the motion is introduced.
Meanwhile, the SC registry has flagged several defects in Justice Varma’s petition, which was filed by advocate-on-record Vaibhav Niti. Niti is now working against the clock to address these issues so that the petition can be eligible for listing before a bench.
Even if the petition is rectified and listed for hearing, it will face significant questions about its maintainability. The incident in question involves sacks of half-burnt currency notes found in Justice Varma’s official residence on March 14, as confirmed by first responders. Moreover, the conduct of the judge and his private secretary, who reportedly cleaned the storeroom in the early hours of the same day, has raised further concerns.
Justice Varma’s petition raises the issue of why the police did not seize the cash or prepare a ‘panchnama’ (an independent witness statement corroborating the discovery of cash). He also questions why he did not file an FIR seeking a full investigation into how the money ended up in his residence and who was responsible for planting it.
Varma faults the inquiry committee for not addressing these points, arguing that it failed to uncover the origins of the money. However, his failure to file an FIR or ask the police to investigate the matter undermines his position. This is particularly significant as evidence of the burnt currency was posted on the SC’s website following orders from then-CJI Khanna.
Interestingly, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara counters Justice Varma’s claims. Nedumpara argues that the discovery of large sums of money in the official residence of a Delhi HC judge—who handles commercial cases worth crores—would lead to the conclusion that the money was illegal. He claims that both the judge and any potential bribe giver could be guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, PMLA, and other laws, thus obligating the police to register an FIR.
