.jpg "These Four Bespoke Brands Are Doing Tailoring Differently")
NEW DELHI: The Lok Sabha Speaker appointed inquiry committee in its report has recommended further action while indicting Justice Yashwant Varma for recovery of wads of 500-rupee notes at his official residence in Delhi in March last year, its unexplained disappearance and an evasive judge failing to explain “presence, source or ownership” of the huge money.The report by the committee headed by Supreme Court judge Aravind Kumar, which was tabled in LS Wednesday, recommended “such further action as may be considered in accordance with law” against Justice Varma, who withdrew from inquiry proceedings after failing to come up with convincing replies to questions put to him and, in what was seen as a move to pre-empt his removal by Parliament, resigned as Allahabad High Court judge.Also read: Can Parliament still remove judge from office?What shape the “action” recommended by the committee might take is not clear but sources did not rule out the possibility of Parliament initiating removal proceedings against Justice Varma despite his resignation. A CBI inquiry was also being discussed as a possible course of action.The committee said Justice Varma’s explanation for the pile of cash “remained evasive and unsatisfactory when tested against evidence of independent official witnesses and corroborative material” and returned a finding that all three charges against the judge stood proved.Judge’s testimony evasive, misleading: Parl panel Justice Yashwant Varma’s reply to Delhi HC Chief Justice on March 22, 2025 – a week after the fire incident that led to discovery of huge cash at his official residence – and his subsequent stand “did not exhibit the candour, transparency and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances”, the Lok Sabha Speaker appointed inquiry committee said in its 121-page, 299-paragraph report.On the judge’s testimony, the committee said, “It was evasive because it did not engage with the central circumstance of substantial currency notes seen by independent officials inside the storeroom. It was incomplete because it did not disclose the factual steps allegedly taken by him, the details of inquiries made, the answers received from staff or household members, or any action taken to preserve the site... It was misleading in effect because the earliest broad denial gave way to successive alternative hypotheses, none of which was substantiated when opportunity to lead defence evidence was available.” On Justice Varma’s decision to withdraw from inquiry proceedings and resign from judgeship, the committee said the judge withdrew at a stage when he was required to substantiate with evidence his theories relating to foul play, planting of money and possible role of staff. “He did not lead evidence to substantiate them,” it said. The committee recorded the shifting shape of the defence put forth by Justice Varma. “The defence moved from denial of presence to absence of seizure and verification, to possible fake currency notes, to possible removal by first responders, and to suspicions regarding staff. Each of these hypotheses required some factual foundation if it was to displace the evidence of independent official witnesses and the corroborative electronic material,” it said.By alleging that the first responders had removed the burnt currency notes, the judge admitted these were at the storeroom inside his residential premises, the committee said, referring his writ petition in SC in which he had indirectly admitted to presence of cash at his residential premises.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
“No satisfactory explanation has been furnished as to how currency notes seen by several official witnesses disappeared or became unavailable. These facts establish failure to preserve…material evidence,” it said.“What stands established is that substantial unexplained currency notes were found within the official premises occupied by the judge…”it said.The report may come up for discussion in Parliament’s next session, and a further course of action against Varma will then be decided.
