Judge Cash Row: Probe Ordered Against Delhi High Court Justice Varma

Sacks of Cash Found at Judge’s Official Residence During Fire

March 23, 2025

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has ordered a formal inquiry into the alleged discovery of a large amount of cash at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court—a matter that has raised serious questions about judicial integrity.

The inquiry is to be conducted by a three-member committee, which includes Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court) and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge of the Karnataka High Court), according to Hindustan Times.

Pending the investigation, Justice Varma’s judicial responsibilities have reportedly been withdrawn, and the Delhi High Court has been directed not to assign him any judicial work. Further, CJI Khanna has instructed that Justice Varma must not alter or delete any data from his mobile devices, while call records from his service providers are also being sought as part of the inquiry.

The controversy originated from a reported fire at Justice Varma’s official residence on Tughlak Road on the night of March 14. The fire was quickly extinguished by the Delhi Fire Services, but first responders, including fire service personnel and possibly police officers, reportedly found large amounts of cash – four to five sacks, according to The Economic Times – in the storeroom, some of which were partially burnt. At the time, Justice Varma and his wife were in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

While the Delhi Fire Services chief, Atul Garg, publicly denied any awareness of the cash discovery, a video of the cash recovery was created by first responders which subsequently reached Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya. The video was reportedly brought to the attention of the Supreme Court collegium before a proposal to transfer Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court was finalised.

When the Supreme Court collegium, which includes CJI Khanna and other senior judges, recommended Justice Varma’s transfer to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, some members of the collegium argued that transferring the judge was insufficient to address the gravity of the allegations. They advocated for an immediate withdrawal of Justice Varma’s judicial work and a formal inquiry to uphold institutional accountability.

The Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA), on its part, issued a statement condemning the decision, questioning whether the Allahabad High Court was being treated as a “dumping ground” for judges facing allegations of misconduct. The association also drew attention to the court’s existing shortage of judges and argued that bringing in a judge under suspicion would further strain the institution and damage its reputation.

It is following these deliberations that CJI Khanna decided to set up the in-house inquiry panel.

Justice Varma, who was originally appointed as a judge of the Allahabad High Court in 2014, was transferred to the Delhi High Court in 2021 following a collegium recommendation. Before his elevation to the bench, he served as a special counsel for the Allahabad High Court and standing counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government.

Allegations of impropriety against members of the judiciary are addressed through a combination of constitutional provisions, judicial self-regulation and parliamentary oversight. The process differs depending on whether the accused is a judge of the higher judiciary—Supreme Court or High Courts—or a lower court judge.

For Supreme Court and High Court judges, the primary mechanism for accountability is impeachment under Article 124(4) and (5) of the Constitution. A judge can be removed only by an order of the President following an address by Parliament, based on proven misconduct or incapacity. This process is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which requires a motion to be introduced in either House of Parliament, followed by an inquiry by a committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.

If the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion must be passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses for the President to remove the judge. However, this process is rarely used due to its high threshold; no judge has been successfully impeached so far.

Lower court judges, who fall under the purview of the respective High Courts, can be disciplined under Article 235 of the Constitution, which gives High Courts control over subordinate judiciary appointments, postings and conduct. Disciplinary actions, including removal, are carried out by the respective state governments based on recommendations from the High Court.

The judiciary has also developed internal mechanisms for self-regulation, such as in-house procedures initiated by the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine complaints against judges. These mechanisms allow for informal inquiries and corrective actions, including voluntary resignation or retirement. The Supreme Court has also asserted its power to scrutinise judicial misconduct under its contempt jurisdiction.

The rationale behind this system is to maintain judicial independence while ensuring accountability. The high threshold for impeachment is intended to prevent political interference in the judiciary, protecting judges from arbitrary removal.

At the same time, self-regulatory mechanisms attempt to address ethical concerns internally. However, critics argue that the system often shields judges from serious scrutiny, as in-house procedures lack transparency and impeachment is nearly impossible to execute. This has led to calls for reforms, including a more structured and independent judicial complaints body.