Cash-at-home case: Three-member committee submits report, CJI options await

With less than a week left for Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna's retirement, all eyes will be on as to what action he will take on the three-member committee report submitted to him regarding the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, who was a Delhi High Court judge and then was transferred to Allahabad High Court.

On March 22, a three-judge committee was formed under the in-house procedure established by the Supreme Court’s full court in 1999. The committee, formed to probe claims of burnt currency found at Varma’s residence, comprised Justices Sheel Nagu, G.S. Sandhawalia, and Anu Sivaraman.

Shortly after, Justice Varma was transferred to his parent, Allahabad High Court and has been assigned no judicial duties since.

The options available to CJI Khanna, based on the in-house procedure and judicial precedents could be first to evaluate the committee’s findings. If the committee’s report finds sufficient evidence supporting the allegations, CJI Khanna can directly advise Justice Varma to resign or seek voluntary retirement. This is a standard step under the in-house procedure to maintain judicial integrity without escalating to formal removal proceedings.

If Justice Varma refuses to resign or retire and the allegations are deemed serious enough, CJI Khanna can inform the President and Prime Minister to initiate removal proceedings under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.

This would involve referring the matter to Parliament for impeachment, requiring a motion supported by MPs and a three-member inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.

But if the committee’s report finds insufficient evidence or clears Justice Varma, CJI Khanna may choose to close the matter, potentially restoring Varma’s judicial duties. The in-house procedure is preliminary and not a substitute for formal inquiry, so the CJI has discretion to drop the issue if the allegations lack substance.

CJI Khanna could make the committee’s report public to ensure transparency, as was done with the Delhi High Court Chief Justice’s preliminary report. The decision to disclose would depend on public interest and judicial propriety.

Whether Justice Varma will resign or contest the allegations is yet to be determined.

At present, the in-house committee’s report on Justice Varma remains confidential, making its conclusions unclear. Any action by the CJI under the in-house procedure will be guided exclusively by the findings of this report.

India