In March 2025, a large quantity of currency notes were burnt in a fire that engulfed the outhouse of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma’s residence. Since it is highly unusual for anyone to store large sum of currency notes at such place, people started wondering about this bizarre incident. Given that the issue of corruption within the judiciary is already a talk of the town, this news spread like a wildfire and it fuelled a frenzy of speculation.
Twists and turns
Taking various turns, including the report of the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court; report of the committee appointed by the Chief Justice of India(CJI); Justice Varma’s refusal to heed CJI’s suggestion to resign; forwarding of the report to the Prime Minister and the President; the motion of members of the Lok Sabha to remove Justice Varma, the commencement of the inquiry by the committee appointed by the Speaker of Lok Sabha; Justice Varma’s objection to the in house procedures of the Supreme Court and the Court’s subsequent rejection of it, this case has now reached a juncture where following Justice Varma’s resignation, both the inquiry and the removal motion have become infructuous. Such a resignation constitutes neither an admission of guilt nor an exoneration. Consequently, the grave findings arrived at by the CJI appointed committee have become inconsequential.
Justice Varma had informed the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court that the room in question was used for storing broken items, furniture etc. However, upon being shown a video, he remarked that this appeared to be a conspiracy hatched against him. He though had not filed a complaint with the police. Ultimately, the Chief Justice concluded that as no one other than the residents of the bungalow, including the domestic staff, gardeners, and employees of the Central public works department etc. had any access to that room deeper probe was needed.
Logical end and pursuit of truth
As such judges have been allowed, in the past, to walk away with all retirement benefits after resignation, there is a public outrage. It is true that no law prescribes where cash should be kept but keeping it in outhouse raises eyebrows. Had this fire not broken out, this cash might never have come to light.
To be fair, the allegation of corruption at this stage is premature. There is a demand that this matter should not be allowed to wither away. The CJI appointed committee has observed that Justice Varma exercised indirect yet active control over that room; that the burnt cash was removed from the premises in the early hours of the next day and several members of the domestic staff, along with Justice Varma’s Private Secretary Rajinder Singh Karki, were actively involved in this process.
It must be appreciated that the core issue in this episode is the pursuit of truth, the establishment of justice and the preservation of the people’s faith in judiciary. It involves uncovering of the answers to certain critical questions such as how did the cash ended up there, who placed it, who is its owner, did the police take appropriate action, what the public works department who owns the bungalow has to say etc. In case of such an inquiry, it is possible that Justice Varma may as well emerge vindicated. This matter needs to be pursued till end for this reason also. Secondly, the report of the findings thus far must be submitted to the government. The government or the Supreme Court suo motu should direct investigative agencies to initiate further criminal proceedings in the matter.
Legal provisions governing action and immunity
It would be appropriate at this juncture to briefly review the legal provisions regarding the initiation of action against High Court judges. Under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, no court entertains any civil or criminal proceeding against a person who is or was a Judge, in respect of any act done or words spoken by such person while discharging his judicial duty. According to Section 15 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, an act committed by a Judge while exercising the authority vested in them by law for judicial purposes, in good faith and belief, does not constitute an offense. The objective of these provisions is to enable judicial officers to discharge their duty fearlessly and to protect the independence of the judiciary.
Judge Varma is not entitled to these immunities as the incident has taken place at his residence and while he was on leave. Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 enables Central Government, the State Government, the Supreme Court, or the High Court to initiate proceedings against such judge under any other law. Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (July 1991 has observed, “We are not aware of the existence of any law that grants judges immunity from criminal prosecution. Article 361(2) of the Constitution grants immunity from criminal proceedings solely to the President and the Governors of States and to no one else. In matters involving criminal offenses, judges are liable to legal action just like any other individual. A prior sanction for criminal prosecution is required only in cases involving the acceptance of bribes or offenses related to corruption.”
It may not be out of place to note here that Supreme Court has not decided the matter whether high court judges come under the purview of Lokpal which is involved in permission of CJI sought by Lokpal in January 27, 2025. This matter has been stayed by Supreme Court on February 20, 2025 and the stay continues. Supreme Court ought to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
Committee not a puerile exercise
When Chief Justice Dinakaran of the Karnataka High Court resigned before the proceedings of the inquiry committee commenced, a member of the committee had opined that such a resignation amounted to the Judge exercising a “veto” against accountability, and therefore the proceedings should continue. His suggestion was rejected. A provision therefore must be incorporated into the relevant legislation providing that the concerned Judge shall not be permitted to resign once the Speaker has constituted an inquiry committee. A constitutional amendment may also be considered, if necessary. In a representative democracy, it must be acknowledged, that such committee constituted pursuant to a motion moved by a substantial number of elected representatives is not a puerile exercise.
In view of above, one can certainly draw the inference that since Justice Varma is now a private citizen, the government can initiate criminal proceedings against him. Furthermore, the Supreme Court can also, suo motu, direct investigation in the matter.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
