Misinformation Spread Over Delhi HC Justice Yashwant Varma's Official Home Incident: SC

The Supreme Court on Friday said misinformation and rumours were being spread over the incident related to Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, from whose official residence a large stash of cash was allegedly discovered after a fire.

The proposal for Justice Varma's transfer to Allahabad High Court, the court statement said, was independent and separate from in-house enquiry procedure. The apex court said upon receiving information, the Delhi High Court Chief Justice commenced an in-house enquiry procedure collecting evidence and information.

The high court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, who had commenced enquiry prior to March 20 collegium meeting, would submit a report to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna today itself, it added. Following its examination, the court would proceed for "further and necessary" action.

However, it was earlier reported that the Supreme Court Collegium had decided to transfer Justice Yashwant Verma from the Delhi High Court back to Allahabad after a large sum of unaccounted cash was discovered at his official residence. The decision was taken after emergency responders found the money last week during Holi vacations, raising serious concerns within the judiciary.

The incident unfolded after a fire broke out at Justice Verma's bungalow. Since he was not in the city at the time, his family members called emergency services, who then alerted the police. What began as a routine fire emergency quickly turned into a controversy as officials discovered the cash inside the residence. The matter escalated through official channels and reached the Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. The five-member Collegium, taking a serious view of the situation, unanimously decided to transfer Justice Verma.

As per the Supreme Court's 1999 guidelines on judicial misconduct, when allegations arise, the Chief Justice first seeks a response from the judge concerned. If dissatisfied, or if the matter requires further investigation, an internal committee is formed, including one Supreme Court judge and two High Court Chief Justices. If the findings indicate serious misconduct, the judge is asked to resign. If they refuse, the Chief Justice can formally request the government to initiate removal proceedings in Parliament under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.

Justice Verma has not yet responded to the controversy. With judicial integrity at stake, all eyes are now on how the higher judiciary will navigate this sensitive issue in the days to come.