New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, who faces an impeachment threat following the cash-discovery episode, challenging the findings of the three-member in-house inquiry committee that recommended his removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
In his writ petition, Justice Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, had sought to quash the communication forwarded by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, recommending action based on the in-house committee’s findings.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, which had reserved its verdict last week, said that Justice Varma’s plea was not maintainable as he could not challenge the findings of the in-house inquiry committee after having participated in the process.
Then Delhi High Court judge, Justice Varma, came under scrutiny following the March 14 discovery of burnt cash in an outhouse of his official residence in the national capital after the fire brigade had gone there to douse a blaze.
Following the cash discovery, which sent shockwaves through judicial circles, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and an in-house inquiry was initiated into the allegations.
The Apex Court-appointed in-house inquiry committee found both direct and electronic evidence indicating that the storeroom was under the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family.
It concluded, based on strong inferential evidence, that the burnt cash was removed from the storeroom in the early hours of March 15.
The three-member inquiry committee — comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, CJ G.S. Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh HC and Karnataka High Court’s Justice Anu Sivaraman — found the allegations serious enough to merit impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma. The committee held that Justice Varma’s misconduct was proven and grave, meriting his removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
In his petition, Justice Varma claimed that the in-house panel acted in a “pre-determined manner” and denied him a fair opportunity to present his defence.
