Report submitted in HC judge cash row

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, on Monday, received the report of a three-judge enquiry panel that probed the recovery of cash at the official residence of a sitting judge of the Delhi high court (at the time), justice Yashwant Varma, that caused ripples across the country. The incident came to light after the Delhi police and the Delhi Fire Service officials were called at the judge’s residence to douse an accidental fire on March 14.

In a press release, the Supreme Court said, “The three-member committee.... constituted for conducting an inquiry int the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge, has submitted its report dated May 3, 2025 to the Chief Justice of India on May 4.”

While the contents of the inquiry panel report have been kept confidential, people familiar with the matter said that the CJI will study the report and conclude whether the charges are made out against the judge. If so, he has to further decide, whether they are serious to recommend for the judge’s removal under Article 124 of the Constitution of India on grounds of “proved misbehaviour”.

The committee was constituted by the CJI on March 22 and comprises Punjab and Haryana high court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh high court Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Karnataka high court judge, Justice Anu Sivaraman; the committee has held sittings in Delhi, visited the official residence of the judge, recorded statements of the police, fire officials, staff posted at the judge’s residence, and other persons related with the case, as part of their fact-finding inquiry.

The Collegium of the Supreme Court, comprising the CJI and justices Bhushan R Gavai and Surya Kant, on March 24 transferred justice Varma to his parent high court , Allahabad high court, where he is presently serving. After the allegations surfaced, the CJI called for a report from the Delhi high court chief justice DK Upadhyay and asked him not to assign any judicial work to the judge.

The incident took place at the official residence of justice Varma at 30, Tughlaq Crescent and the police was informed about the fire at the storeroom near the office of the judge, situated inside the premises. The police team at the spot recovered partially burnt currency notes kept in a sack and a video of the same was recorded and forwarded to senior police officers. This information was later shared with Delhi high court chief justice who was in Lucknow. On 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 of March 21 became the basis for the CJI to constitute a three-member in-house committee t.

CJI Sanjiv Khanna, before ordering the in-house committee probe, wrote to the Delhi high court chief justice requiring 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. He said that the room is “unlocked” and is accessible both from the official front gate as well as the back door of the staff quarters. He further stated that the room where the fire took place 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 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.

On March 24, the Collegium recommended justice Varma’s repatriation to Allahabad high court and four days later, the Centre approved the same. He took oath of office at the Allahabad high court on April 5. The restriction on assigning him any judicial work, still continues to operate against him.