Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Tuesday appointed a three-member panel to probe allegations against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, after a large quantity of burnt and partially burnt cash was discovered at his residence in March this year, reportedly following a fire that brought firefighters to the scene. The panel comprises Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court judge Justice M.M. Shrivastava, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya of the Karnataka High Court.
“The process of removal of Justice Yashwant Varma should begin. The Parliament is united against corruption. We have accepted the impeachment motion...People have faith in the judiciary," said Om Birla.
The move comes days after the Supreme Court dismissed Justice Varma’s petition challenging the findings of an in-house inquiry committee, which had found him guilty of misconduct. The committee was set up by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna after the incident.
The fire and subsequent discovery of cash took place on 21 March. The very next day, the CJI sought a written explanation from Justice Varma regarding the allegations. Justice Varma responded by rejecting the charges outright. Following his reply, the CJI constituted a three-member in-house panel to examine the matter. The Supreme Court later published the committee’s report on its website, including photographs and video evidence related to the case.
On 30 July, the apex court took a stern view of Justice Varma’s conduct, remarking that it “did not inspire confidence” and defending the CJI’s authority to address judicial misconduct.“The Chief Justice of India cannot be merely a post office,” the bench observed. “He has certain duties to the nation.”
Justice Varma’s petition, filed under the anonymised title XXX v. The Union of India, sought to nullify the in-house panel’s report. During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned why the judge had waited until after the committee’s findings to move the apex court.“You should have come earlier against the panel’s report,” the bench told him. “Why did you appear before the in-house inquiry committee and not challenge it there and then?” The court also pressed Justice Varma on his decision to participate in the inquiry process while later disputing its validity.
