Latest news with #JusticeVarma
Hans India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Justice Varma indicted: 10 eyewitnesses confirmed cash among 55 questioned, say sources
New Delhi: A damning inquiry report by a Supreme Court-appointed three-judge panel has reportedly indicted Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, confirming serious allegations of misconduct. The panel's findings, submitted to then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and forwarded to the President and Prime Minister earlier this month, recommend the removal of the judge. The inquiry, triggered by the discovery of a huge sum of burnt cash at Justice Varma's official residence in New Delhi following a fire on March 14, has laid bare troubling details, say sources. The three-member committee, comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman, meticulously examined the evidence and testimony of 55 witnesses over several weeks, sources added. In its report, finalised on May 3, the committee unequivocally stated that the cash was found in a storeroom at 30 Tughlak Crescent, the official residence allotted to Justice Varma, according to sources. Sources said the panel concluded that access to the storeroom was under the 'covert or active control' of Justice Varma and his family, thereby establishing a direct link between the judge and the cache of cash. The report further states that strong inferential evidence indicates the burnt cash was removed from the storeroom in the early hours of March 15, hours after the fire, sources informed. The committee, weighing 'direct and electronic evidence on record,' expressed a firm view that the allegations of misconduct raised in the letter from the then Chief Justice of India dated March 22, 2025, are 'sufficiently substantiated' and serious enough to call for the initiation of removal proceedings against Justice Varma, sources said. Throughout the inquiry, the panel examined a broad spectrum of witnesses, including 11 officials from the Delhi Fire Services, multiple police personnel ranging from rank-and-file officers to top brass, three personal security officers assigned to Justice Varma, CRPF static guards, and domestic as well as court staff. Notably, the judge's daughter, who was present during the fire, and Justice Varma himself were questioned extensively. Significantly, ten eyewitnesses testified about the presence of cash in the storeroom, corroborating the central allegation that Justice Varma's residence housed a large amount of currency under questionable circumstances, sources said. The report's implications are stark: the presence of such unexplained cash in a judge's official residence, coupled with his failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for its source, strikes at the very core of his integrity, say sources. The panel's recommendation to pursue removal proceedings underscores the seriousness of the misconduct and sends a clear message that the highest standards of probity must be upheld within the judiciary, say analysts.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
7 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Cash row: SC rejects RTI plea for in-house panel report, CJI's letter to PM
The Supreme Court administration has rejected a plea seeking a report of the apex court-appointed committee, which indicted Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in the cash discovery row, under the Right to Information Act. The RTI application had also sought the communication of the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the matter. The apex court administration apparently referred to the confidentiality of the communication and rejected the RTI application on grounds that it may violate parliamentary privilege also. Earlier this month, the then CJI Khanna had wrote to the President and the Prime Minister besides sharing the report of the committee along with the response received from Justice Varma. Now, it is up to the executive and Parliament to decide the future course of action. The in-house procedure entails that the CJI writes to President and the Prime Minister for impeachment after the advice to the judge to resign is not complied with. Also Read "Chief Justice of India, in terms of the in-house procedure, has written to President of India and the Prime Minister of India enclosing therewith copy of the three-member committee report dated May 3 along with the letter/response dated May 6 received from Justice Yashwant Varma," the apex court said in a statement on May 8. The apex court-appointed panel confirmed the cash discovery allegations against Justice Varma in its inquiry report, sources previously said. The three-member panel comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court. The report was finalised on May 3. Sources had also said the then CJI Khanna nudged Justice Varma to step down in view of critical findings in the report, which was forwarded to the judge for his response in line with the principle of natural justice. The panel analysed evidence and recorded the statements of over 50 people, including Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora and Delhi Fire Service chief who were among the first responders to the fire incident at Justice Varma's official residence in Lutyen's Delhi at 11.35 pm on March 14. Justice Varma was a judge of the Delhi High Court at that time. The allegation was repeatedly denied by Justice Varma in his response to the Delhi High Court chief justice and to the apex court appointed panel. The controversy was raised following a news report in the cash discovery row and led to several steps, including a preliminary inquiry by Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, judicial work being taken away from Justice Varma in the Delhi High Court, and later his transfer to the Allahabad High Court sans judicial work. On March 24, the apex court collegium recommended the repatriation of Justice Varma to his parent Allahabad High Court. On March 28, the top court asked the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court not to assign any judicial work for now to Justice Varma. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
CJI Sanjiv Khanna urges Centre to initiate steps to oust Justice Yashwant Varma
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna NEW DELHI: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna is understood to have recommended to the Centre to initiate a motion in Parliament for removal of Allahabad high court 's Justice Yashwant Varma , who refused to resign despite a judicial inquiry corroborating discovery of huge amount of cash at his official residence in Delhi on March 14. The SC officially said on Thursday that the CJI, in line with the in-house procedure, has written to President Droupadi Murmu and PM Modi "enclosing therewith copy of the three-member committee report dated May 3 along with the letter/response dated May 6 received from Justice Varma". Operation Sindoor Operation Sindoor: Several airports in India closed - check full list Did Pak shoot down Indian jets? What MEA said India foils Pakistan's attack on Jammu airport: What we know so far Under the in-house procedure, if an inquiry report indicts the judge for corruption or misdemeanour, the CJI would ask the judge concerned to either resign or seek voluntary retirement. If the judge refuses, the CJI is to write to the President and the PM to initiate removal proceedings under the Judges Inquiry Act . On the recommendation of the CJI, the govt will have to initiate a motion for removal of Justice Varma in either Lok Sabha (minimum 150 MPs to sign) or Rajya Sabha (50 MPs to sign). It would then be open for the LS speaker or the RS chairman to decide whether the motion is to be admitted. Once the motion is admitted, the speaker or chairman would constitute a three-member committee comprising an SC judge and an HC chief justice and a distinguished jurist. The committee will frame charges against the judge for investigation and the judge concerned will have an opportunity to refute the evidence. Justice Varma has been without judicial work since March 2 After a formal trial, the committee will give a report to the House concerned, which, if it finds the judge guilty, will debate the matter in the two Houses. The judge can be removed only after each House with two-thirds of members present and voting support the motion. Earlier, Parliament had debated removal motions against SC judge V Ramaswami, which fell through in Lok Sabha in 1991, and Calcutta HC's Justice Soumitra Sen, who resigned midway through the debate in Parliament. In its May 3 report, the inquiry panel comprising Punjab and Haryana HC Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh CJ G S Sandhawalia and Karnataka HC's Justice Anu Sivaraman corroborated the finding that a huge amount of cash was found at Justice Varma's residence by first responders to a fire incident at his official Tughlaq Crescent bungalow in Delhi. The inquiry panel had also detailed the mysterious disappearance of bundles of cash that had not caught fire on the night of March 14-15 after the first responders and police left the scene. The CJI had sent the adverse report to Justice Varma seeking his response. The CJI had also suggested to Justice Varma to tender his resignation given the virtual indictment by the informal inquiry panel constituted by the CJI on March 22. His refusal to do so and readiness to prove his innocence before a formal inquiry committee, which will be set up following admission of a motion in either House of Parliament, forced the CJI's hand to write to the President and the PM. Justice Varma has been without judicial work since March 20. He was repatriated to Allahabad HC later in the month and the CJ concerned was advised not to assign him any judicial work. He will continue to be without judicial work till the formal inquiry, set up after admission of the motion for his removal in one of the Houses in Parliament, is completed and Parliament debates it.
