Cash Row: CJI Recommends Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma, Say Sources

"Chief Justice of India, in terms of the in-house procedure, has written to President of India and the Prime Minister of India enclosing therewith copy of the three-member committee report dated May 3 along with the letter/response dated May 6 received from Justice Yashwant Varma," the apex court said in a statement.

The apex court-appointed panel confirmed the cash discovery allegations against Justice Varma in its inquiry report, sources previously said.

The three-member panel comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court. The report was finalised on May 3.

Sources had also said the CJI nudged Justice Varma to step down in view of critical findings in the report, which was forwarded to the judge for his response in line with the principle of natural justice.

The panel analysed evidence and recorded the statements of over 50 people, including Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora and Delhi Fire Service chief who were among the first responders to the fire incident at Justice Varma's Lutyens' Delhi official residence at around 11.35 pm on March 14.

He was a judge of the Delhi High Court at that time.

The allegation was repeatedly denied by Justice Varma in his response to the Delhi High Court chief justice and to the apex court appointed panel.

The controversy was raised following a news report in the cash discovery row and led to several steps, including a preliminary inquiry by Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, judicial work being taken away from Justice Varma in the Delhi High Court, and later his transfer to the Allahabad High Court sans judicial work.

On March 24, the apex court collegium recommended the repatriation of Justice Varma to his parent Allahabad High Court.

On March 28, the top court asked the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court not to assign any judicial work for now to Justice Varma.

While dealing with a case of alleged sexual harassment, the top court had in 2014 laid down the in-house procedure to probe allegations against a judge of constitutional courts.

In the first stage of the in-house procedure, the court said, the prima facie veracity of allegations contained in complaint would be ascertained.

The second stage of the in-house procedure relating to sitting judges of high courts could lead to serious consequences.

The second stage is monitored by none other than the CJI, it said.

Only if the CJI endorsed the view expressed by the chief justice of the high court that it required a deeper probe they would constitute a "three-member committee", taking the procedure to the second stage.

The committee would comprise two chief justices of the high courts (other than the high court concerned), aside from a judge of a high court.

The second stage paved way for a deeper probe.

On the culmination of the inquiry by the panel, it was required to record its conclusions followed by a report to the CJI.

The court pointed out the report could either lead to the conclusion that there was no substance in the allegations levelled against the judge in question or there was sufficient substance in the allegations.

"In such eventuality, the three-member committee, must further opine, whether the misconduct levelled against the judge concerned is so serious, that it requires initiation of proceedings for the removal of the concerned Judge; or that, the allegations contained in the complaint are not serious enough to require initiation of proceedings for the removal of the judge concerned," it had said.

If the panel concluded that the misconduct was not serious enough for initiating proceedings for the judge's removal, the CJI would advise the judge, and may also direct to place the report of the panel on record.

"If the committee has concluded, that there is substance in the allegations, for initiation of proceedings, for the removal of the judge concerned, the CJI shall proceed as under:- (i) The judge concerned will be advised, by the CJI, to resign or to seek voluntary retirement. (ii) In case the judge concerned does not accept the advice of the CJI, the CJI, would require the chief justice of the high court concerned, not to allocate any judicial work, to the judge concerned," the top court had said.

If the judge concerned did not abide by the advice of the CJI to resign, the CJI would intimate President, Prime Minister, of the findings of the committee warranting initiation of impeachment, it added.

Get Latest News Live on Times Now along with Breaking News and Top Headlines from India and around the world.