In a fire incident at the house of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court on Holi, a huge amount of undeclared cash was found on 14th March 2025. Questions were raised over such a huge stash of cash being found at the house of a sitting judge, as videos of half-burnt currency notes surfaced online. Finally, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna has constituted a committee for internal investigation in this matter. In this article, we will try to understand what would have happened if the same incident had happened with a common man.
Regarding this, Supreme Court lawyer Reena Singh says, “If so much cash was recovered from a common man’s house, agencies like the police, Income Tax Department, Enforcement Directorate or CBI would have taken immediate action. The accused would have been taken into custody, and interrogation would have begun. A case would have been registered under various sections of the law like Money Laundering (PMLA, 2002), Income Tax Act 1961 and Prevention of Corruption Act.”
“He would be declared as illegal income, and a heavy fine would be imposed, and the process of confiscating his property would begin. He would be immediately arrested and produced in court. Moreover, the accused would be sent to judicial custody, and it would be difficult to get bail. The cash recovered from the common man would be deposited in the government treasury, and the bank accounts of the accused would be frozen,” she adds.
What would have happened if a common man were in the place of Justice Varma?
What would have happened if, instead of Justice Varma, the same incident had happened with a common man? This is an important question. If Justice Varma is replaced by a common man, the firemen would have informed their officer about the cash found after extinguishing the fire. Along with this, they would have informed the Delhi Police. The firemen would have given detailed information about this incident in their diary.
Meanwhile, Delhi Police officers would reach the spot, investigate and inform the Income Tax Department. The IT Department would question the person in whose house the notes were found or burnt. If that person gives every detail about the cash, how this cash is connected to him, how he earned this money and for what purpose he kept it.
If the Income Tax Department was satisfied with the information given by him and felt that this cash was not earned through illegal means and his intention was not wrong, then the case would be closed. If the Income Tax officers were not satisfied with his answer, then a case would be filed against the said person for accumulating more wealth than his income. In addition, the IT Department would inform the Enforcement Directorate (ED) about the matter.
If the Enforcement Directorate officials investigate the case and find that it is a case of money laundering, then an FIR is registered and the person is immediately arrested. After this, he remains in jail during the trial, and the accused person visits the court again and again for bail. In this way, this case becomes different for the common man and the VIP.
What is the legal process going on with Justice Yashwant Varma?
After examining the report of Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Varma’s reply, CJI Sanjeev Khanna has constituted a three-member committee to conduct an internal investigation into the matter. The committee includes Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia of Himachal Pradesh High Court and Justice Anu Sivaraman of Karnataka High Court.
This committee will tell the CJI in its report whether the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma are true or not. Also, whether removal proceedings are required due to ‘judicial misconduct’. If the misconduct is serious, the CJI will advise Justice Verma to resign or retire. If he refuses, the CJI can inform the President and the Prime Minister and recommend action to remove Justice Verma.
Subsequently, the process of impeachment of the Justice will begin in the Parliament. For this, at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha will give a signed notice to the Speaker or at least 50 members of the Rajya Sabha will give a signed notice to the Chairman. The Speaker or Chairman will consult MPs and jurists. If the Speaker or Chairman accepts the notice, then a 3-member committee will be formed to investigate the complaint against Justice Varma.
The committee will include a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist, and it will decide the charges, and the investigation will be conducted on that basis. A copy of the charges would then be sent to the judge who then will give a written reply in his defence. After completing the investigation, the committee will submit its report to the Speaker or Chairman, and that report will be tabled in the concerned House of Parliament.
If the report finds misbehaviour or incapacity, a motion for the removal of the judge will be initiated. This requires a majority of the total membership of that House or at least two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. The number of votes in favour of the motion must be more than 50% of the total membership of each House. If the motion is accepted, it will be sent to the other House.
Once the proposal is approved in both houses, it will be sent to the President. After this, the President issues an order to remove the concerned judge. In this way, the process of removing the judge will be completed. Till now in independent India’s history, no judge has been removed by impeachment, while impeachment proceedings have been initiated against two people. In this way, the work of prosecuting the judge will be completed.
The demand to register an FIR against Justice Verma was rejected in the Supreme Court
In fact, on Friday (28th March), the Supreme Court refused to consider the petition demanding registration of FIR against Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Verma in the case of illegal cash found in government premises. The bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjwal Bhuyan said that the petition was filed prematurely. The bench said that an in-house investigation of the case is going on on the instructions of the CJI.
The bench said, ” After the completion of the in-house investigation, many options are open. The CJI can order registration of an FIR or refer the matter to Parliament after examining the report. Today is not the time to consider this petition. All options are open after the in-house report. The petition is premature.”
Petitioner Nedumpara had argued in his petition that there was an allegation of a POCSO case against the then judge of Kerala High Court, but the police did not register an FIR. He said that it is not the job of the court to investigate. It should be left to the police, and the in-house committee is not a statutory authority. It cannot be a substitute for investigation conducted by special agencies.
Nedumpara said that the common man is asking many questions in the Justice Yashwant Verma case, adding that people are asking why no FIR was registered from the day the cash was recovered on March 14 till today. Why no Panchnama of the seizure was made? Why was this scam concealed for a week? Why was no action taken?
It must be recalled that back in 1991, the Supreme Court gave a verdict that even judges are public servants. Therefore, if during their tenure, a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court or any other court is suspended, a case can be filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, at that time, the Supreme Court had laid down some conditions.
The apex court had ruled that if the CJI feels that the allegations have no substance, then the case cannot be registered. Along with this, it was also said that unless the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court gives permission, a case cannot be registered against the concerned judge under Section 154 of CrPC. Under this section, the police can arrest anyone without a warrant.
In this regard, Supreme Court lawyer Sambhrant Krishna opines, “The matter of finding a huge amount of cash from Justice Verma’s official residence is very serious. The Supreme Court has promptly formed a committee to investigate. If the investigation reveals any role of Justice Verma in any form, then legal action can be taken against him like a common citizen.”
Pointing out the basic reasons behind such problems, advocate Sambhrant Krishna further says, “This entire episode once again draws our attention to a big problem, the appointment of judges by the collegium. Unless there is reform and transparency in this, unqualified persons will continue to occupy the chair of justice.”
Reena Singh says, “There is no immediate arrest of a person holding an influential position like Justice Verma. He gets the benefit of political-social contacts. He can also get bail quickly, while the common man has to fight a long legal battle. Even in media coverage, the case of the common man is shown harshly, while efforts are made to save the influential persons.”
However, other advocates like Reena Singh and Sambhrant Krishna also believe that everyone is equal before the law, but the collegium is a big problem. To bring equality in the judicial process, there is a need for fair investigation, transparency and speedy trial of corruption cases against everyone along with provision of strict punishment, so that no one is above the law.
Details of the cash found at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma
On the day of Holi, March 14, 2025, at around 11.30 pm, Justice Verma’s house caught fire. At the time when this incident happened, Justice Verma was in Madhya Pradesh with his wife. His elderly mother and daughter were in his official residence in Delhi. Justice Verma was informed about the fire by his family members. After this, Justice Verma’s personal secretary informed the Delhi Fire Brigade about it.
As soon as the information was received, two fire engines were sent to the spot and the fire was brought under control within 15 minutes. During that time, a large number of notes kept in sacks in the store room had burned. The fire brigade personnel informed their senior officers about the notes. After the fire was extinguished, Justice Verma’s personal secretary asked the five policemen who had reached the spot to leave from there.
When the investigating officer of this case came to Justice Verma’s residence the next morning, he was sent back and asked to come later. The Indian Express report quoted sources as saying that the Delhi Police did not prepare a Panchnama on the night of the incident. The officers posted there will be questioned regarding this. To prepare a Panchnama, five independent persons are required, who are witnesses of the incident and they can give their statement in court during the trial.
A daily diary was registered at the Tughlaq Road police station, but there was no mention of the financial recovery. Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora came to know about it 8 hours after the incident. In fact, the Additional DCP of New Delhi had submitted the morning diary to his senior officers at 8 am on March 15, 2025. That diary contained a summary of the incidents that took place in the area in the last 24 hours.
This diary also mentioned the fire in Justice Verma’s residence. After this, the Delhi Police Commissioner was informed about the incident and the video of the notes on fire was also shown to him. After this, the Police Commissioner informed his senior officials in the Union Home Ministry. Finally, on March 15, he informed Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay about the incident.
This matter came to the media on 21st March, 7 days after the incident. There was an uproar over this. Quoting Delhi’s fire chief Atul Garg, PTI reported that firefighters did not find any cash in Justice Verma’s house. When the controversy arose, Atul Garg said that he never gave such a statement to PTI that no cash was found at Justice Verma’s official residence.
As the controversy escalated, CJI Khanna called a meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium comprising 5 judges. The Collegium immediately called the incident worrisome and transferred Justice Verma back to the Allahabad High Court. Questions were raised about this as well and the Allahabad High Court Bar Association opposed his transfer and said that the Allahabad High Court is not a ‘dustbin’.
When the outrage intensified, the Supreme Court said that the matter of Justice Varma’s transfer is separate from this. Along with this, the CJI sought a fact-finding report on this matter from the Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay. In the report submitted to the CJI, Justice Upadhyay said that on the next day of the incident, on March 15, at around 4:50 pm, the Delhi Police Commissioner informed the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court about the fire.
To prepare the report, Chief Justice Upadhyaya visited the spot along with the High Court Registrar and also met Justice Varma there. Justice Verma said in his explanation that servants, gardeners and sometimes CPWD workers used to stay in that room. When the Chief Justice showed the pictures of the burnt notes, Justice Verma expressed apprehension of a conspiracy against him.
Chief Justice Upadhyay sent his 25-page report to the CJI regarding all the incidents. In this report, Justice Upadhyay said that the matter needs a thorough investigation. After this, the CJI ordered Justice DK Upadhyay not to assign any judicial work to Justice Yashwant Varma. He also asked Justice Varma not to delete the call records and other data of the mobile.
After examining the report of Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Verma’s reply, Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna has constituted a three-member committee to conduct an internal investigation into the matter. The committee includes Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia of Himachal Pradesh High Court and Justice Anu Sivaraman of Karnataka High Court.
