 "CCPA, Central Consumer Protection Authority, ORDER, JUSTICE, COURT ORDER")
The money recovered from the storeroom of the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, then with the Delhi High Court, was unaccounted cash and he was unable to explain where it came from, which justifies his impeachment, according to the in-house committee constituted to probe the allegations of cash discovery.
“The factum of the burnt cash having been found in the store room was undeniably established and therefore, the burden shifted upon Justice Varma to account for the said cash/money by giving a plausible explanation which he failed to do except projecting a case of flat denial and raising a bald plea of conspiracy,” the report said, adding that he was also unable to prove the money did not belong to him but to someone else by disclosing the identity of the real owner of the cash.
The committee also concluded that the storeroom, where the fire broke out and where the cash was found, was within the premises of the judge’s residence.
The control of the room and permission to have access to it were with Justice Varma or his family members.
“In view of the categorical statement of the security personnel to the contrary that there was discipline maintained amongst them and none could access the house without the permission of the family members. Therefore, it is well nigh impossible for currency to be planted in the store room of a sitting Judge, which is being monitored by static 1+4 guard and a PSO stationed at the gate at all time, apart from the fact that the house abounds with a large number of old and trusted domestic servants with over six staff quarters,” the report said.
Also Read
The committee also noted that at least two persons of the Central Reserve Police Force on duty at the residence said before it the “door of the store room was locked at the time of the fire and that they had assisted in breaking open the lock”.
The in-house committee, comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court judge Anu Sivaraman rejected Justice Varma’s claims that the episode had been stitched up to frame him. In his written reply, Justice Varma had referred to an earlier attempt made on social media to give him a bad name.
“Neither any specific person has been named who is responsible for the planting or any instance or motive as to why he has been targeted had been put-forth in the said reply and neither before us, the said theory has been elaborated,” the report said.
Accepted transfer quietly
The committee said that no attempt was made by Justice Varma or any member of his household to report the incident or to immediately secure the visuals from the CCTV cameras, even when he was told there were photos and videos of burnt cash on his premises.
The panel said after the incident, Justice Varma quietly accepted the proposal of his transfer to the Allahabad High Court.
“The categorical acceptance on 20.03.2025 immediately, without any demur and "respectfully accepting the decision of repatriation to Allahabad" would, in normal circumstances, only be done after discussion with family members at least and after an attempt to find out the reason for transfer, having served in Delhi High Court for the last three years,” the committee said.
The committee examined 55 witnesses and visited the site of the fire, which broke out around 11.35 pm on March 14 this year.
Based on the panel’s findings, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, when he was chief justice of India, had written to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Justice Varma’s impeachment.
