NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has reportedly recommended the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad high court to the Centre, following his indictment in the cash recovery controversy by a Supreme Court-appointed panel.
According to PTI sources, the CJI has submitted the report of the three-member inquiry committee, along with Justice Varma’s response, to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
This step follows the established in-house procedure, under which the CJI advises a judge to resign in light of serious findings. If the judge does not comply, the CJI may proceed with recommending impeachment.
“In accordance with the in-house procedure, the Chief Justice of India has written to the President and the Prime Minister of India, enclosing the committee’s report dated May 3 and Justice Yashwant Varma’s response dated May 6,” the Supreme Court said in a statement.
The panel, appointed by the Supreme Court, upheld the allegations relating to the discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s official residence. The committee included Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab and Haryana high court) and G S Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh high court), along with Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka high court). Their report was finalised on May 3.
Sources also said that the CJI had earlier urged Justice Varma to resign, citing the panel’s findings, which had been shared with him for his response, in keeping with principles of natural justice.
The panel reportedly examined evidence and recorded statements from over 50 individuals, including Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora and the chief of Delhi Fire Services, both of whom responded to the fire incident at Justice Varma’s residence in Lutyens’ Delhi on March 14 at around 11.35 pm, when he was still a judge of the Delhi high court.
Justice Varma has denied the allegations in his responses to both the Delhi high court Chief Justice and the Supreme Court-appointed committee.
The controversy began after media reports emerged regarding the cash recovery incident. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by Delhi high court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya. Subsequently, Justice Varma was divested of judicial work in the Delhi High Court and transferred to the Allahabad high court without any judicial responsibilities.
On March 24, the Supreme Court collegium recommended his repatriation to his parent high court in Allahabad. Four days later, the top court directed that Justice Varma not be assigned judicial duties.
In 2014, while examining a separate case involving alleged sexual harassment, the Supreme Court laid down a structured in-house procedure to investigate complaints against judges of constitutional courts.
As per the guidelines, the process begins with determining the prima facie credibility of a complaint. If warranted, a three-member panel is formed, comprising two Chief Justices from high courts (excluding the judge’s own court) and a high court judge. This deeper inquiry leads to a report submitted to the CJI.
The committee’s report may conclude that there is either no substance in the allegations or that they warrant further action. If misconduct is found to be serious enough, the CJI may advise the judge to resign or seek voluntary retirement. If the judge declines, the CJI may direct that the judge not be assigned judicial work and may then formally recommend impeachment to the President and Prime Minister.
According to PTI sources, the CJI has submitted the report of the three-member inquiry committee, along with Justice Varma’s response, to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
This step follows the established in-house procedure, under which the CJI advises a judge to resign in light of serious findings. If the judge does not comply, the CJI may proceed with recommending impeachment.
“In accordance with the in-house procedure, the Chief Justice of India has written to the President and the Prime Minister of India, enclosing the committee’s report dated May 3 and Justice Yashwant Varma’s response dated May 6,” the Supreme Court said in a statement.
The panel, appointed by the Supreme Court, upheld the allegations relating to the discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s official residence. The committee included Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab and Haryana high court) and G S Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh high court), along with Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka high court). Their report was finalised on May 3.
Sources also said that the CJI had earlier urged Justice Varma to resign, citing the panel’s findings, which had been shared with him for his response, in keeping with principles of natural justice.
The panel reportedly examined evidence and recorded statements from over 50 individuals, including Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora and the chief of Delhi Fire Services, both of whom responded to the fire incident at Justice Varma’s residence in Lutyens’ Delhi on March 14 at around 11.35 pm, when he was still a judge of the Delhi high court.
Justice Varma has denied the allegations in his responses to both the Delhi high court Chief Justice and the Supreme Court-appointed committee.
The controversy began after media reports emerged regarding the cash recovery incident. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by Delhi high court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya. Subsequently, Justice Varma was divested of judicial work in the Delhi High Court and transferred to the Allahabad high court without any judicial responsibilities.
On March 24, the Supreme Court collegium recommended his repatriation to his parent high court in Allahabad. Four days later, the top court directed that Justice Varma not be assigned judicial duties.
In 2014, while examining a separate case involving alleged sexual harassment, the Supreme Court laid down a structured in-house procedure to investigate complaints against judges of constitutional courts.
As per the guidelines, the process begins with determining the prima facie credibility of a complaint. If warranted, a three-member panel is formed, comprising two Chief Justices from high courts (excluding the judge’s own court) and a high court judge. This deeper inquiry leads to a report submitted to the CJI.
The committee’s report may conclude that there is either no substance in the allegations or that they warrant further action. If misconduct is found to be serious enough, the CJI may advise the judge to resign or seek voluntary retirement. If the judge declines, the CJI may direct that the judge not be assigned judicial work and may then formally recommend impeachment to the President and Prime Minister.
You may also like
37-year-old Indian-origin man fatally stabbed inside Lloyds Bank in Derby, England
Rain and landslides shut Jammu-Srinagar highway
New Delhi-Una Janshatabdi Express meets with an accident
First US University Campus In India To Be Established In Mumbai
Scottie Scheffler and Justin Thomas reach same Rory McIlroy stance before Truist Champs
