Alleged cash discovery: Why did you wait, Supreme Court asks Justice Varma

The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma why he appeared before a committee constituted to probe an alleged cash discovery at his official residence in New Delhi if he felt that it had no legal power to investigate the matter.

"Why did you not challenge when the committee was appointed? Why did you wait? Why did you appear before the committee? Why did you not approach the Supreme Court immediately? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first," a division bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta verbally asked Varma's counsel.

"Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past," the bench said. Varma's counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, responded saying that this cannot be held against Justice Varma "I (Varma) appeared because I thought the (inquiry) committee would find out who the cash belongs to," Sibal said.


Bundles of burnt banknotes had allegedly been recovered from an outhouse of Justice Varma's residence in Delhi after a fire incident in March. Justice Varma, a judge at the Delhi High Court at the time, had claimed ignorance about the cash. Neither has Justice Varma disputed the fire incident nor the recovery of cash, Justice Datta said, adding: "Neither can the fire incident be disbelieved, nor can the recovery of cash." Justice Datta told the counsel that if Varma was challenging the procedure, then he would have to satisfy the court that the procedure adopted was against the Constitution.

The development took place during the hearing of a plea filed by Justice Varma challenging the Supreme Court-appointed in-house committee report indicting him over the recovery of the cash. In his plea, Justice Varma has also sought a declaration that the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for his removal as a high court judge be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires.

The bench on Monday pointed out shortcomings in the plea filed by Justice Varma. "This petition should not have been filed like this. Please see the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is the supreme court as your grievance is against the process mentioned."

The bench also objected to the Union of India being made a respondent. "This petition should not have been filed so casually, maybe it missed your notice also. There are three respondents, your main grievance is against the Supreme Court. Union of India not required. Supreme Court, through the Registrar, confidential, not required. Main is, Respondent No. 2, through whom the Supreme Court is to be represented, Secretary General," Justice Datta said.

The bench posted the matter for resumed hearing on Wednesday.