Top News

New Delhi: The Supreme Court appointed three-judge panel trashed the conspiracy theory of Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma in the cash recovery row, asking why he did not file a police complaint.

According to the judge, the storeroom, which was the scene of the discovery, was utilised to store miscellaneous items including unused furniture, bottles, carpets, and public works department materials, and was accessible from both the front and rear entrances of the property-making it susceptible to access by outsiders.

The three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its final report, held that Justice Varma, and his family members had “covert or active control” over the storeroom.

The panel’s inquiry report said it proved his misconduct was serious enough to seek his removal.

“The unnatural conduct of Justice Yashwant Varma has already been noticed …and the fact that if there was any conspiracy theory why he chose not to file any complaint with the police officials or bring it to the notice of the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India regarding the fact that there were planted stories regarding the burning of currency notes in the storeroom which is part of his house,” the panel said.

The committee, also comprising Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia of Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman of Karnataka High Court, scrutinised Justice Varma’s act of accepting his transfer to the Allahabad High Court post the fire incident.

“Another reason which weighs with us is post incident conduct that Justice Yashwant Varma knowing the inevitable, quietly accepted the proposal of transfer order which he received on March 20, at 4.15 PM after finishing his judicial work from the office of the Chief Justice of India though he could have responded till 9.00 A.M on 21.03.2025 as per the said proposal (sic),” the panel said.

A fire broke out at the judge’s official bungalow at 30 Tughlak Crescent in the national capital on the night of March 14, leading to the cash discovery.

The panel said a “categorical” and immediate” acceptance of the transfer on March 20 without any “demur” would in a normal scenario happen post a discussion with the family members and after an attempt to find out the reason for transfer, particularly after having served in the Delhi High Court for the last three years.

“It is his categorical case that he has served diligently for a decade without any complaint. Thus, he would have liked to find out the reason for transfer,” the panel report said.

The report continued, “In the absence of any plausible explanation coming from Justice Varma or his family members or for that matter any other witness, this committee is left with no option, but to hold that the trust reposed in him was belied by him by allowing highly suspicious material in shape of piles of currency notes to be stashed in the storeroom.”

Whether the stashing was done with the tacit or explicit consent of Justice Varma or his family members had little significance given the larger concept of breach of public trust and probity expected of the high constitutional office held by Justice Varma, it added.