SC May Raise Maintainability Objection to Justice Varma’s Plea Against Inquiry Repor

A writ petition submitted by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court—trying to set aside an inquiry report associated with the finding of sacks containing currency notes at his official residence—is expected to be met with a significant hurdle in the shape of maintainability when it reaches the Supreme Court.

The report that led to former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna calling for his removal is now at the center of a dramatic high-stakes legal and parliamentary drama.

With the Monsoon Session of Parliament starting Monday, Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju announced that over 100 Members of Parliament have appended their signatures to a motion calling for the removal of Justice Varma. Constitutional provisions state that a motion for the removal of a judge must be supported by at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.

Unless the petition is urgently put up before the highest court, it may turn out to be moot after the motion is formally moved in Parliament. Meanwhile, the registry of the Supreme Court has pointed out several technical flaws in Justice Varma's petition and informed advocate-on-record Vaibhav Niti, who is now left scrambling to amend the errors for the petition to be taken up for listing.

Even if the procedural barriers are cleared and the issue is heard, the petition is likely to be tried on various fronts. The incident in question dates back to March 14, when firefighters and police personnel first responders, allegedly discovered sacks of partially burnt currency notes at the judge's official residence. These concerns were further increased by the actions of Justice Varma and his private secretary, who allegedly tried to clean the storeroom soon after the responders departed.

Justice Varma's appeal raises important questions regarding the absence of police procedure, most importantly why there was no 'panchnama' or a document of witness statements prepared, and why the police failed to take possession of the cash discovered on the premises. He also questions why the inquiry committee didn't find out who might have left the cash in his house.

Yet, his failure to register an FIR between March 15 and March 22—the day the inquiry committee was established—has been criticized. People have claimed that doing so would have strengthened his defense by showing proactive intention to get at the truth.

Throwing more fuel on the controversy, images of the charred money were posted to the Supreme Court website at the directive of then Chief Justice Khanna, further ratcheting up criticism of the issue.

Justice Varma's petition too is being contested in another Public Interest Litigation moved by advocate Mathews Nedumpara. The PIL argues that the fact of huge amounts of money—particularly in the secure house of a Delhi High Court judge who is known to preside over commercial cases of high values—tends strongly to indicate illegal transactions.

"Presence of such large amounts of cash in crores of rupees, even at the official residence of a judge of Delhi HC. would give rise to conclusions unavoidable that the money. is illegal money," Nedumpara contended. He stated that the suspected bribe-giver and even the judge might be brought before the courts under serious charges of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and other laws, which means that the police were legally bound to file an FIR.

As the court battle progresses, the Supreme Court's ruling on the question of whether to accept and hear Justice Varma's petition will decide the course of this historic judicial and constitutional confrontation.