Justice Varma probe disclosure triggers internal judicial debate

The Supreme Court collegium, which comprises CJI Khanna and justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Abhay S Oka and Vikram Nath, was informed about the reported discovery of cash on March 20 — six days after a fire incident at justice Varma’s residence on March 14. However, the people cited above indicated that the decision to set up an in-house inquiry and make the initial inquiry report public was made solely by the CJI without formal or informal deliberations with his collegium colleagues.

One of the persons cited above told HT that at least two collegium judges feel that making the video and other parts of the initial report public was “not necessary” since the in-house inquiry had yet to be conducted. “Justice should not only be done but seem to be done,” said this person, adding that these two judges believed that the details made public should have been left to the in-house panel to examine first.

“About the video that shows some burnt cash piles, they feel that an unauthenticated video with no attribution or verification need not have been made public because it may create a certain impression without even testing the veracity and source of that video,” said another person aware of the developments.

While all collegium members agree that swift action was required to protect judicial integrity, some feel a more measured approach was warranted. “The purpose of the in-house inquiry panel must not become redundant due to the noise created by making all records public. Every person deserves a fair chance to be heard,” said another source.

Although the authority to order an in-house inquiry rests solely with the CJI, some collegium members believe that deliberation was necessary before making the preliminary report public. “After having discussed in detail with the collegium judges when it was decided to repatriate justice Varma to the Allahabad high court and briefing all the Supreme Court judges on March 21, some members of the collegium feel that the decision to go public with every minute detail of the initial inquiry even before the formal inquiry commences should have been a matter of deliberation,” another person added.

On Saturday, CJI Khanna constituted a three-member in-house inquiry panel to investigate the allegations relating to reported discovery of cash at the Delhi residence of justice Varma. The panel includes justice Sheel Nagu, chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana high court; justice GS Sandhawalia, chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh high court; and justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka high court.

“The Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi has been directed not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma,” read a statement issued by the Supreme Court administration on Saturday night.

This decision followed a recommendation by Delhi high court chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, who advised an in-house inquiry after examining a preliminary report. On Saturday morning, justice Upadhyaya had met with officials from the Delhi Police, Delhi Fire Services (DFS), and the Supreme Court’s vigilance department before submitting an additional report to the CJI. This report led to the formation of the inquiry panel.

The controversy stems from a reported fire at Justice Varma’s official residence on Tughlak Road on March 14 at around 11:35 pm. While DFS officials extinguished the fire within minutes, first responders—including DFS personnel and possibly the police—allegedly discovered stacks of cash in a storeroom, some of which were reportedly charred. Justice Varma and his wife were in Bhopal at the time.

On March 20, the Supreme Court collegium unanimously recommended transferring justice Varma to the Allahabad high court—his parent high court. However, during deliberations, at least two members argued that a mere transfer was insufficient and pushed for an immediate in-house inquiry. One judge insisted that justice Varma be stripped of judicial work immediately, while another pressed for a formal investigation to ensure institutional accountability.

The matter has also sparked reactions from the judiciary and legal fraternity. The Allahabad high court Bar Association (HCBA) strongly opposed justice Varma’s transfer, questioning whether the Allahabad high court was being treated as a “dumping ground.”

The controversy has also resonated in Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha on March 21, chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar responded to Congress MP Jairam Ramesh’s call for greater judicial accountability by stating that he would explore mechanisms for structured discussions on the issue. Dhankhar appeared to hint at reviving the debate over the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.

Justice Yashwant Varma has strongly denied any connection to the cash allegedly found at his residence, claiming that he is being framed as part of a conspiracy to malign him. In his response to the CJI’s queries – which was made public a day ago, justice Varma wrote: “I unequivocally state that neither I nor any of my family members had stored or kept any cash or currency in that storeroom at any point of time. The very idea or suggestion that this cash was kept or stored by us is totally preposterous.”

Justice Varma further argued that the video purportedly showing burnt cash was not an accurate representation of what he had witnessed. “I was totally shocked to see the contents of the video since that depicted something which was not found on site as I had seen it. It was this which prompted me to observe that this clearly appeared to be a conspiracy to frame and malign me,” he wrote. He also questioned the timing and authenticity of the allegations, linking them to previous unsubstantiated accusations against him on social media in December 2024.