The Supreme Court-appointed three-member judges panel commenced their probe over the alleged discovery of cash at Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence on Monday. The probe panel visited Justice Varma’s residence in Delhi and inspected the premises.
The probe panel comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh; and Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka commenced the probe and visited Justice Varma’s official residence at Tughlak Crescent in Delhi. According to reports, the judges spent close to 30 minutes on the premises and inspected the site.
The apex court appointed the probe panel to investigate allegations after the Delhi High Court chief justice submitted an in-house inquiry report to the Collegium over the matter. In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court published the inquiry report along with photographs and videos collected as evidence on Saturday.
Also read
- Can CM Rekha Gupta's upcoming EV policy save Delhi from toxic air?
- Can air purifiers in classrooms solve Delhi's student health crisis? 10,000 classrooms to get device in first phase
- Delhi air pollution: Smog chokes NCR as govt says no direct lung disease link
- Delhi pollution: Shocking report shows police inaction after BS-VI entry rule, despite 'Severe' air quality
Huge amounts of unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered from the residence of Justice Varma when firefighters visited his house to douse a fire on March 14. The Supreme Court ordered an in-house inquiry after the incident came to light. In his response to the inquiry, Justice Varma denied the charges against him and claimed he had no connection with cash discovered. Justice Varma charged it was a conspiracy to malign his image.
The Delhi High Court withdrew all judicial work from Justice Varma on Monday. The apex court’s collegium has decided to transfer Justice Varma to his parent court – the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court bar association strongly opposed the collegium’s decision and said no court should be used as a “dumping ground”.