Cash stash row SC’s in-house panel commences inquiry visits residence of Justice Varma

     New Delhi, Mar 25 (PTI) The three members of a Supreme Court-appointed in-house committee visited the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma on Tuesday as it commenced its inquiry into allegations of discovery of a cash pile at his residence here.
     Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Justice G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and Anu Sivaraman, a judge of the High Court of Karnataka, reached Justice Varma's official residence at 30, Tughlak Crescent and were inside for around 30-35 minutes.
     The committee is learnt to have inspected the site before leaving in the afternoon, the sources said.
     It is not known whether Justice Varma was at his residence when the inquiry panel reached.
     The findings of the crucial inquiry will decide the fate of Justice Varma who is facing allegations that "four to five semi-burnt sacks of Indian currency notes" were found in his Lutyens home following a fire incident at around 11.35 pm on March 14.
     The apex court Collegium had recommended the repatriation of Justice Varma, who was de-rostered by the Delhi High Court following a directive from Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, to his parent Allahabad High Court.
     On March 22, the CJI constituted the three-member committee to conduct an in-house inquiry into allegations against Justice Varma and decided to upload the in-house inquiry report of Chief Justice D K Upadhyay of the Delhi High Court in the incident. It included photos and videos of the alleged discovery of a huge stash of cash.
     Justice Varma strongly denounced the allegations and said no cash was ever placed in the storeroom either by him or any of my family members.
     In 2014, while dealing with a case of alleged sexual harassment of a subordinate court judge in Madhya Pradesh at the behest of a sitting judge of the high court, the top court laid down the in-house procedure and said in the first stage of the in-house procedure, the prima facie veracity of the allegations contained in the complaint is ascertained.
     "If so, whether a deeper probe is called for. The first stage does not contemplate an in-depth examination of the allegations. It requires merely an assessment based on the contents of the complaint, and the response of the concerned judge.
     "All that the Chief Justice of the High Court is required to do, is to determine whether a deeper probe is required. This is to be done, on the basis of a logical assessment made on a consideration of the response of the concerned Judge (with reference to the allegations levelled in the complaint)," it had said.
     The top court had said it is the "second stage of the in-house procedure" relating to sitting judges of high courts which could lead to serious consequences.
     The second stage is monitored by none other than the CJI, it had said.
     Only if the CJI endorses the view expressed by the Chief Justice of the high court, that a deeper probe is called for, he would constitute a "three-member Committee", and thereby take the investigative process to the second stage.
     This committee will comprise two CJs of the High Courts (other than the concerned High Court), besides a Judge of a high court. The second stage postulates a deeper probe, it had said.
     "Herein, for the first time, the authenticity of the allegations is to be probed on the basis of an inquiry.
     "The incumbents of the three-member Committee would have no nexus with the concerned judge. Not only would the concerned judge have a fair opportunity to repudiate the allegations levelled against him, even the complainant would have the satisfaction that the investigation would not be unfair. The in-house procedure was devised to ensure exclusion of favouritism, prejudice or bias," it had said.
     It said on the culmination of the inquiry, conducted by the panel, it shall record its conclusions and a report be furnished to the CJI.
     It had said that the report of the panel could lead to one of the following conclusions -- that, there is no substance in the allegations levelled against the concerned judge; or that there is sufficient substance in the allegations levelled against the judge.
     "In such eventuality, the three-member Committee, must further opine, whether the misconduct levelled against the concerned Judge is so serious, that it requires initiation of proceedings for the removal of the concerned Judge; or that, the allegations contained in the complaint are not serious enough to require initiation of proceedings for the removal of the concerned Judge," it had said.
     "If the three-member Committee has concluded, that there is substance in the allegations, for initiation of proceedings, for the removal of the concerned judge, the Chief Justice of India shall proceed as under:- (i) The concerned judge will be advised, by the Chief Justice of India, to resign or to seek voluntary retirement. (ii) In case the concerned Judge does not accept the advice of the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of India, would require the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, not to allocate any judicial work, to the concerned Judge," the top court had said.
     It said in the eventuality of the judge concerned not abiding by the advice of the CJI to resign, then the CJI would intimate the President of India, and the Prime Minister, of the findings of the three-member Committee, warranting initiation of proceedings for his removal.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)