On Tuesday, during proceedings before a committee constituted under the Judges Inquiry Committee Act, senior advocates assisting the panel submitted that the evidence placed on record was sufficient to establish the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, which also form the foundation of the motion seeking his removal.
The inquiry stems from the alleged recovery of a substantial amount of unaccounted cash from the official residence of Justice Varma in New Delhi in March last year. A committee headed by Justice Aravind Kumar was constituted to investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident and to determine whether the conduct in question warranted action under the framework governing judicial accountability. During the course of the proceedings, Justice Varma, through a communication, withdrew from the inquiry, alleging a lack of procedural fairness in the manner the proceedings were being conducted.
Senior advocates Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare and Aishwarya Bhati, appointed to assist the committee, argued that the material already available sufficiently proved three core allegations: the presence of unexplained cash within official premises, failure to preserve crucial evidence along with alleged interference, and the provision of evasive or misleading explanations. They further contended that Justice Varma’s withdrawal at a stage when he was required to respond substantively to the charges appeared to be an attempt to create a narrative of procedural bias, despite no such concerns being raised earlier in the proceedings. The counsel also dismissed the allegation that certain witnesses were deliberately omitted to suppress favourable evidence, stating that the existing documentary and oral record was adequate for the purposes of the inquiry. It was emphasised that, given his control over the premises, Justice Varma was best positioned to explain the presence of the unaccounted cash.
The assisting counsel further pointed out that several key facts remained undisputed, including the existence of cash in a storeroom within the official residence, the removal of partially burnt currency after emergency responders had left the premises, the presence of family members and staff during the relevant time, and the control exercised over the premises by Justice Varma and his household. They maintained that the allegations of procedural impropriety were unfounded and had been raised at a belated stage, and therefore should not be treated as legitimate objections to the inquiry process.
The committee has yet to deliver its final findings. However, the assisting counsel urged that the proceedings should continue on the strength of the evidence already on record and that the claims of procedural unfairness ought not to be entertained, as the material available is sufficient to sustain the charges under consideration.
Picture Source :
