Big setback for Justice Yashwant Varma as SC rejects his plea in cash haul case
Justice Yashwant Varma cash haul case: The top court held that sending of letter by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to President and Prime Minster was not unconstitutional.
New Delhi: In a big setback to Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected his plea seeking invalidation of in-house inquiry panel that recommended his removal in connection with the cash recovery row. The apex court said that Varma's conduct does not inspire confidence and that his plea should not be entertained.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih held that sending of letter by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to President and Prime Minster with recommendation for his removal was not unconstitutional. The bench also observed that the judges committee appointed by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) adhered to the stipulated procedure. Justice Varma in his plea challenged the May 8 recommendation by then CJI to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
What is cash haul case involving Justice Varma?
In March, a huge cache of half-burnt cash were found at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi following a fire incident. Justice Varma was then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.
A three-judge committee headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was formed to investigate the incident. The panel conducted the inquiry for 10 days and visited the scene of the accidental fire besides examining 55 witness.
After a through probe, the panel in its report said Justice Varma and his family members had covert or active control over the store room where burnt piles of cash were found, proving his misconduct which is serious enough to seek his removal.
What Justice Varma said in his clarification
Justice Varma, however, in his plea said the inquiry "reversed the burden of proof”, and the findings were based on a preconceived narrative. He also said the inquiry timelines were driven solely by the urge to conclude proceedings swiftly, even at the expense of "procedural fairness”. His petition also contended that the inquiry panel drew adverse findings without affording him a full and fair hearing.