Refusing to bow to pressure to resign or opt for voluntary retirement in the wake of a controversy over the discovery of cash at his Delhi residence earlier this year, Justice Yashwant Varma told the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna last month, that doing so would mean accepting a “fundamentally unjust” process that denied him even a personal hearing.
In a strongly worded letter dated May 6 , copy of which has been seen by Hindustan Times, justice Varma declined the then CJI’s advice, issued in a May 4 communication, to step down or seek retirement, and instead flagged serious violations of procedural fairness. The CJI’s letter was delivered to him just hours after he received the findings of a three-judge in-house panel that found him liable for misconduct, and in response, justice Varma decried the compressed timeline of just 48 hours given to make a life-altering decision.
“To accept such advice would imply my acquiescence to a process and outcome that I respectfully consider to be fundamentally unjust and requiring reconsideration and review,” justice Varma wrote in the letter addressed to Justice Khanna.
“You will appreciate that I have served the institution for more than 11 years. A decision such as the one your letter advises me to take necessarily entails due deliberation and thought which cannot and ought not to be restricted to a 48-hour window,” it added.
{{/usCountry}}“You will appreciate that I have served the institution for more than 11 years. A decision such as the one your letter advises me to take necessarily entails due deliberation and thought which cannot and ought not to be restricted to a 48-hour window,” it added.
{{/usCountry}}The letter underscored that the denial of a personal hearing even after the in-house committee concluded its fact-finding inquiry was a clear departure from earlier precedents and the principles of natural justice.
“I respectfully note that at no point during the inquiry was I informed of the Committee’s preliminary or tentative views regarding the evidence it had gathered. Consequently, I was never afforded a meaningful opportunity to address the specific allegations or case ultimately tabled in the Report,” the judge said.
The controversy began on March 14 when a fire broke out at the outhouse of justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. Firefighters reportedly found charred currency notes stuffed in sacks. The chief justice of the Delhi High Court flagged the matter to then CJI Khanna, who constituted a three-judge inquiry committee on March 22 comprising Justices Sheel Nagu (then Punjab & Haryana Chief Justice), GS Sandhawalia (then Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice), and Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court).
The panel submitted its report on May 3, concluding that justice Varma was liable for misconduct. On May 8, the Supreme Court issued a press release stating that justice Varma had submitted his response but had reiterated his earlier stand and denied wrongdoing, calling the incident a “conspiracy.”
Justice Varma was subsequently divested of judicial work and transferred to his parent high court in Allahabad. A letter by justice Khanna was also sent to the President and Prime Minister, enclosing the inquiry report and requesting action.
The matter, meanwhile, acquired political overtones. Union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju confirmed that the government had reached out to the Opposition for support in initiating a motion during the upcoming monsoon session. The motion for his removal is expected to be introduced by law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal.
Complicating matters further, Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar questioned the constitutional sanctity of the in-house panel’s findings at a public event on May 19. Calling the process “inconsequential,” Dhankhar advocated a formal criminal investigation instead.
In his May 6 letter, justice Varma referred to the case of justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta high court as a precedent where opportunities for interaction and representation were provided not just to the committee but also to the Supreme Court collegium.
“Even after a finding of serious misconduct was rendered by the In-House Committee and advice was rendered by the then Hon’ble CJI, justice Sen was granted sufficient time to examine the report, submit his written representation and afforded a personal hearing before the then Hon’ble CJI and two senior-most Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” justice Varma noted.
The May 4 letter from justice Khanna conveyed that he was “satisfied” with the conclusions of the in-house committee, which said unexplained cash was found at justice Varma’s official residence and that his explanation lacked credibility. The letter advised him to resign or take voluntary retirement within 48 hours, failing which the panel’s report would be forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister. But justice Varma, in his response, pleaded for more time to submit a detailed representation and requested an opportunity for a personal hearing.
“I am confident that had your Lordship in fact reviewed these documents, you would have been equally distraught over the fundamental unfairness of the procedure adopted and the fundamentally flawed nature of the findings reflected in the Report,” he wrote. “It has therefore become imperative for me to place on record my pain, anguish and profound concerns about the manner in which I have been dealt with,” the judge added.
In his concluding remarks, justice Varma emphasised that he reserved his right to “take such action as may be necessary to protect my honour and dignity” and requested that confidentiality around the report be maintained as per past practice and settled law.