A Scandal in the Capital: The Missing Links in Justice Yashwant Varma's Cash Row

Rather than clearing the air, the video seems to have done more damage to Justice Varma’s reputation.

The process should not be about punishing judges without hearing them but ensuring that they are held to the highest standard of conduct.

(Photo: Aroop Mishra/The Quint)

In the early hours of Friday, The Times of India broke the news of an alleged cash recovery from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, a Delhi High Court judge, after the Fire Services were called to extinguish a fire at his official residence the night of 14 March.

This report followed a rumour that surfaced on Thursday evening about Justice Varma's potential repatriation to his parent High Court, the High Court of Allahabad.

By Friday afternoon, the news had taken the national capital by storm— journalists and lawyers alike were having a field day giving their own spin to the story. Court corridors, newsrooms, and WhatsApp chat groups were abuzz with myriad conspiracy theories.

However, the institution in the middle of the controversy—the Supreme Court of India and its collegium— was conspicuously silent.

On Friday evening, in a non-descript and unofficial ‘press note’ released to the media, the apex court said that there was misinformation going around even as it admitted to initiating an ‘in-house inquiry’. Justice Varma’s position was yet to come out in the public domain.

It was only on Saturday evening that the Supreme Court came out with an official communique which stated that a three-member committee had been constituted to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against Justice Varma. Hours later, a full report of the Chief Justice of Delhi and Justice Varma’s response together with a video of the fire incident was made public by the Supreme Court.

Not only was the Supreme Court woefully late in responding to an incident which had occurred a week ago, Justice Varma’s response and the alleged video raise even more troubling questions. 

On Monday, a Collegium resolution recommended Justice Varma’s transfer to the Allahabad High Court, even as inquiry against him is underway. The Allahabad High Court Bar has chosen to label the judge a ‘threat to democracy’ and called for his impeachment, although the Collegium resolution does not state any reason or justification for this recommendation.

Supreme Court’s Inordinate Delay

This case has once again highlighted very serious concerns regarding judicial accountability, and the complete opacity with which the Supreme Court handles matters of the judiciary.

For long, there has been disquiet within the legal community as well as the larger public about the lack of transparency in judiciary operates. Unlike other constitutional functionaries, judges bear no direct accountability either to elected representatives or electorate.

Consequently, when corruption ‘scandals’ are reported, it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to immediately provide forthwith transparency regarding the actual facts, the ensuing inquiry, and the actions taken. However, as recent events have demonstrated, the Supreme Court has often fallen short of achieving this ideal.

Even in this case, by the time the Supreme Court released its ‘official’ version of events, the damage had already been done.

The slightest hint of corruption casts a long shadow on public trust in the judicial process, sparking calls for urgent measures to secure judicial accountability.

Needless to state, judicial accountability must come from within the judiciary itself and not from the executive. Political actors have everything to gain from the diminishing reputation of the judiciary: it is, in fact, the institution that keeps an errant executive in check. Any ‘oversight’ on the judiciary and its processes by the executive could risk the targeting of independent judges. Despite this, the judiciary insists on maintaining a shroud of secrecy, which only lends credence to allegations of murky dealings. 

In this case, the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court Bar, and the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court were required to act swiftly of their own accord. It took a ‘scandal’ of momentous proportions to prompt them to offer any transparency about the process of enquiry.

By Saturday, rumour mills had gone into overdrive, fuelled by an irresponsible establishment media and the lack of an official version on facts. 

Unanswered Questions 

Certain vital details made public by the Supreme Court fail to form a coherent link. Justice Varma has unequivocally denied the allegations against him, stating that the room where the fire broke out "is unlocked and accessible both from the official front gate as well as the backdoor of the staff quarters" and has called the episode "a conspiracy to frame and malign him."

The report reveals that the Commissioner of Police informed the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court about the incident only on the evening of 15 March, a full day after the fire had broken out on the night of 14 March. The report, however, is notably silent on who had captured the video, taken pictures, and cleared the debris including what appears in the video to be currency notes.

From an objective point of view, Justice Varma appears to be a victim in this case: in his absence, a fire breaks out at his residence, unidentified people witness and record footage of unaccounted cash in an unlocked room and, as a result, the judge finds himself in the dock.

The unsubstantiated video, rather than clearing the air, seems to have done more damage to Justice Varma’s reputations: in the public imagination, the footage of currency notes shrieks corruption. 

A Shrill TV Media

While the Supreme Court has, for a change, tried to establish transparency, it is pertinent to note that several sections of the media have condemned Justice Varma without due process. News agency ANI has put out a video of what looks like burnt debris, which has led to further conjecture. The crucial question of how the debris appeared nine days later, remains unanswered.

It is important in this moment to not fall for the shrill voices of the establishment media. Usual suspects on prime-time television are already calling for Justice Varma’s head, even as the formal legal process is underway. Calls are being made for Justice Varma to be treated like an ordinary citizen, with a Central Bureau of Investigation probe (CBI) gaining traction.

However, it is the Constitution and the law of the land which accords an additional layer of protection—in the form of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968—to Justice Varma and to all other similarly places judges. This distinction is important, for non-interference in the affairs of the judiciary is a cardinal principle of our polity, which cannot be discarded on the basis of motivated brouhaha. 

Judicial Corruption and Contrasting Public Response

The case also raises another pertinent issue that is hardly debated: the way we view ‘corruption’ in public life. Only allegations of financial corruption shocks public conscience; however, political and ideological corruption in the judiciary appears to be acceptable.

• Take the example of Abhijit Gangopadhyay, a former judge of the Calcutta High Court, who was accused of passing orders favourable to and openly aligning with the ruling party. In March 2024, Justice Gangopadhyay resigned as Calcutta High Court judge and within two weeks, had a Lok Sabha ticket from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and was subsequently elected as a BJP MP. 

• Similarly, the case of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, former Chief Justice of India, deserves similar scrutiny. After allegations of sexual harassment which were handled in an extremely shoddy manner, Justice Gogoi passed several verdicts including the Ayodhya Ram Mandir judgment and Rafale review, which were politically significant to the ruling BJP. Four months after his retirement, Justice Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha.

While allegations of financial corruption are serious, the judiciary also needs to tackle the other approaches in which judicial decisions are affected.

The most recent incident of Justice Shekhar Yadav’s Islamophobic slurs, which escaped any meaningful castigation, is a startling instance of the collegium’s failure in acting against ideological corruption. While an in-house inquiry was supposedly initiated against the judge, the outcome of this inquiry remains unknown.

Supreme Court’s Hour of Reckoning

As shocking as the current allegations may be, they are not unprecedented.

Justice V Ramaswamy, the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court and a sitting Supreme Court judge at the time of his impeachment, was impeached over undue expenditure in the renovation of his official residence.

At the time, the Supreme Court Bar Association, displaying great moral clarity, passed a resolution calling for his impeachment, and requested the Chief Justice not to assign any work to the judge. 

Subsequently, Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee, addressing the country in open court, said that involvement in any investigation on the conduct of a sitting Supreme Court Judge on such matters was "embarrassing" in the circumstances.

External political forces cannot dictate how judges should be accountable. The process should not be about punishing judges without hearing them but ensuring that they are held to the highest standard of conduct. Accountability must come from the system itself.

However, the current system provides incomplete answers, with reports from in-house committees scarcely made public. What we are left with is either remarks from retired judges, vague leaks, or theories from the Bar grapevine. 

The Supreme Court frequently emphasises that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Now is the time for it to conduct a fair and objective inquiry and walk the talk. 

(Rohin Bhatt is an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court and the author of The Urban Elite v Union of India. Harshit Anand is an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)