CJI seeks justice Yashwant Varma’s response as 3-judge panel confirms cash at home
CJI Sanjiv Khanna seeks justice Varma's response on cash found at his residence, as a three-judge panel confirms allegations after a detailed inquiry.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has sought a response from justice Yashwant Varma within 48 hours after a three-judge enquiry panel probing the allegations of cash found at his residence confirmed the development in its confidential report submitted to the CJI.
The three-member panel, constituted on March 22, comprises Punjab and Haryana high court chief justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh high court chief justice GS Sandhawalia, and Karnataka high court judge justice Anu Sivaraman. The panel submitted its report to CJI Khanna on May 4.
According to sources aware of the developments, the report has confirmed the presence of cash at the former Delhi HC judge’s residence, contrary to his earlier claims denying presence of any cash and alleging “conspiracy” behind the alleged discovery.
The three-judge panel has prepared a detailed report one the conclusions after interviewing judge’s personal staff, the high court staff attached with his office, persons from CPWD, the Delhi fire service, Delhi Polce Commissioner, other police officials, among others. The panel had even confronted justice Varma with the evidence and questioned him at least once on the findings.
Following the submission of the report, it is learnt that the CJI on the same day (May 4) sent a copy of the report to justice Varma, seeking his response within “48 hours”. in his letter to the judge, the CJI indicated that the allegations of cash being recovered from the home standing proved, Varma’s response is vital before proceeding with any action. Justice Varma is currently a judge of the Allahabad high court.
On March 14, a fire broke out at the residence of justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi HC, at 30, Tughlaq Crescent. At the time of the incident, justice Varma was not in Delhi on account of the Holi break. It was his personal secretary who alerted the fire department.
The panel in its report detailed the sequence of events based on the statements recorded of people who witnessed the incident that day.
The police were informed about the fire in the storeroom near the office of the judge on the premises. The investigating team recovered partially burnt currency notes kept in a sack and a video was recorded and forwarded to senior police officers. This information was later shared with Delhi high court chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, who was in Lucknow. Upon his return to Delhi on March 16, he met justice Varma and confronted him with the video evidence. Justice Verma is reported to have expressed apprehension that it was a “conspiracy” against him.
On March 20, the evidence received by justice Upadhyay was shared with the CJI.
Justice Upadhyay, based on his personal enquiry, concluded in a letter on March 21, “I am of the prima facie opinion that the entire matter warrants a deeper probe.”
His enquiry further revealed that prima facie, there was no “possibility of entry or access to the room by any person other than those residing in the bungalow”, or the staff working there, as the storeroom was locked.
This letter dated March 21 became the basis for the CJI to constitute a three-member in-house committee.
CJI Khanna, before ordering the in-house committee probe, wrote to the Delhi HC chief justice seeking a response from justice Varma on three pointed queries – how he accounted for the presence of money/cash in the room located in his premises, the source of money/cash which was found in the said room, and who removed the burnt money/cash from the room in the morning of March 15, 2025.
In his response, justice Varma denied that the room was locked and said that it was accessible both from the official front gate as well as the back door to the staff quarters. He further stated that the room where the fire broke out was certainly not part of his house and was used by “all and sundry” to store unused furniture, old household wares and garden equipment.
He said that the very idea of storing cash in such an open, freely accessible place was “preposterous” and denied that neither he nor any of his family members stored cash in the storeroom.
On the question of the removal of cash, it was asserted by justice Varma that there was no “removal” of currency allegedly found at the site and none of his staff was shown any remnants of cash or currency at the site.
The Supreme Court Collegium, comprising the CJI and justices Bhushan R Gavai and Surya Kant, on March 24 transferred justice Varma to the Allahabad high court, where he is serving at present. He took oath of office at the Allahabad HC on April 5. Since March 20, when the allegations surfaced, justice Varma has not been assigned any judicial work.
On the action that is to follow, much will depend on justice Varma’s response, but CJI Khanna, who retires on May 13, has little time at hand to act on the report. While it is open for justice Varma to seek a personal meeting with CJI or even the collegium comprising CJI and two seniormost judges, allowing such a request will be left entirely to the discretion of CJI.
As justice Varma is a permanent judge of the high court, the process of his removal as a judge under Article 217 of the Constitution will require the President to first get an opinion from CJI, based on the in-house panel report. However, the option of resigning or taking voluntary retirement is always open to justice Varma.
