Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi

New Delhi, Mar 24: Even before a three-judge panel began its probe into allegations of unaccounted cash recovery at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma during a fire incident on March 14, preliminary findings by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice have cast a shadow over his fate.

On Saturday, chief justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-judge committee comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court chief justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court chief justice GS Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court justice Anu Sivaraman to investigate the allegations.

Following an initial report from Delhi High Court chief justice DK Upadhyaya, the CJI directed that Justice Varma be relieved of judicial duties until further notice. In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court also published justice Upadhyaya’s inquiry report, including photos and videos of the alleged cash recovery, along with Justice Varma’s denial of the allegations.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh emphasized the need for zero tolerance toward corruption in the judiciary but criticized the handling of the case, stating that publicizing the report could weaken the investigation. "The place should have been sealed and preserved. The video is not credible evidence, and the premature release of the report might work in the judge’s favor," he said.

However, advocate Prashant Bhushan supported the disclosure, arguing that transparency was necessary to counter speculation and misinformation.

If the three-judge committee finds the allegations substantial, the CJI may advise Justice Varma to resign or opt for voluntary retirement. If he refuses, the matter will be escalated to the President and the Prime Minister for potential removal proceedings.

Justice Varma, in his response, denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations a conspiracy to frame him. "Neither I nor my family had any knowledge of cash. We were neither shown nor handed over any sacks of burnt currency," he asserted.

Justice Upadhyaya’s report, however, recommended a deeper probe into the matter, keeping the controversy alive as the judicial panel gears up for its investigation.