Cash row case: Justice Yashwant Varma moves Supreme Court challenging inquiry report to initiate impeachment proceedings

Justice Yashwant Varma on Friday approached the Supreme Court challenging the in-house three-judge inquiry committee’s report and former CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

Justice Varma of Allahabad High Court said that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond by the in-house inquiry committee before giving its findings.

His plea came ahead of the Parliament's monsoon session, which begins on July 21.


The Congress committee, presided by Sonia Gandhi, has collected signatures of many party MPs of both the Houses for submitting notice for bringing an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma of the high court in the monsoon session of Parliament.

Earlier in June, Justice Varma denied before the SC-appointed inquiry panel his involvement in the case of discovery of burnt currency notes found at his residence.

On March 14, cash was allegedly found by fire tenders when a fire broke out in the storeroom of his residence at 30 Tughlak Crescent, when he presided the Delhi High Court. The judge was not present at his house at the time of incident.

The three-judge inquiry committee’s report was entrusted to investigate the cash row case. The panel concluded that Justice Varma and his family members had "covert or active control" over the storeroom, proving his misconduct, serious enough to seek his removal.

During investigation, Varma said that storeroom in question was not part of his living quarters, but a disused storage space routinely accessed by staffers, among others. He also told the panel that the entrance of the storeroom was constantly monitored by CCTV cameras and was under control of security personnel, and it was highly improbable that the cash was kept in the storeroom.

He also emphasized on his absence at the time of incident. The fire was reported by his daughter and private secretary, he said.

The judge questioned the fairness of the process and called for an inquiry not only into the allegations, but also into his overall judicial conduct and reputation among the Bar.

Denying the imputations, he had previously said, "The reputation built over the decade as the Judge of a High Court was highlighted that there was no such allegation ever made in the past and never any doubt had been cast on his integrity and that an inquiry should be made with respect to his functioning as a Judge and the perception of the legal fraternity regarding his discharging of judicial functions."