Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Mar 25: With the arch rivals the Congress and the BJP appear to be on the same page on the issue of alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from the official residence of the Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, the Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Tuesday called a meeting of the leaders of various parties to decide on the pleas by some members for a discussion in the House on the issue.
But while announcing the meeting, Mr Dhankhar underlined the need for the recovery of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, a move adopted by the BJP government at the Centre for a change in the judicial appointment system in which the government would have a greater say unlike the present Supreme Court collegium system.
He convened the meeting to be held later in the day after rejecting a rule 267 notice of Haris Beeran of Kerala-based IUML who wanted a discussion on the matter by setting aside the business of the day. Mr Dhankhar, who agreed that it was “indeed a very serious issue,” said he had on Monday met the Leader of the House JP Nadda and the Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge on the “very critical issue that is agitating the minds in branches of governance.”
According to him, Mr Kharge had suggested calling a meeting of floor leaders and Mr Nadda agreed. “The three of us took note of the developments and also took note that for the first time, in an unprecedented manner, the Chief Justice of India took the initiative to put everything in the public domain,” he said.
Mr Dhankhar was referring to the apex court uploading on its website an in-house inquiry report, including photos and a video, into the alleged discovery of a huge stash of cash at Justice Varma’s official residence. A fire at the storeroom of the official residence of Justice Varma on March 14 in posh Lutyens’ Delhi locality purportedly led to the discovery of the cash by firefighters and police personnel.
The Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has constituted a three-member committee to probe the discovery of “four to five semi-burnt sacks” of Indian currency notes after the fire incident. Mr Dhankhar said the Supreme Court putting the entire material available with it in the public domain has found wide acceptability in the country.
Pramod Tiwari of the Congress said justice should not just be done but also seen to be done and so steps need to be taken to ensure such incidents are not repeated. On cue, Mr Dhankhar referred to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act passed by Parliament, saying if the mechanism for judicial appointments had not been struck down by the Supreme Court, things would have been different.
The law was passed by Rajya Sabha with near unanimity, with no dissension, only one abstention and was later endorsed by the requisite 16 state assemblies and signed by the President under article 111 of the Constitution, he said.
“Now, it is befitting the occasion to reiterate (that it) was a visionary step. And imagine if that had taken place, things would have been different.” “What emanated from the Indian Parliament as a historic development with rare convergence of unanimity since independence, found acceptance by needed state legislatures. We need to reflect on what happened to that,” he said.
Mr Dhankhar said under the Constitution, there was no provision that allows anyone to tinker with a Constitutional Amendment. “There is no constitutional provision of review or appeal of a constitutional amendment. If there is a legislation (passed) by parliament or state legislatures, judicial review can take place on whether it is in conformity with the Constitutional provisions,” he said.
The Rajya Sabha Chairman went on to state that one is considered innocent until proven guilty, but MPs should think about the “judicial mess.” “Before the nation, there are two situations. One was what emanated from Parliament duly endorsed by state legislatures (and) sanctified by the President by appending signatures under Article 111.
“The second is a judicial order. Now we are at a crossroads. I strongly urge members to reflect. There can be no breach by any institution of what emanated from the Parliament, endorsed by the legislatures. This should, again, I reiterate, be the mechanism holding the field,” he said. Terming the present situation “extraordinarily painful”, he asked the MPs to mull over the fallouts.
“We will come back to the House on this very critical important issue that concerns much beyond the judicial mess. It concerns the sovereignty of parliament and the supremacy of parliament, and whether at all we are relevant.
“If we effect an amendment in the Constitution and that is not executable…. I have no doubt Parliament is possessed of the power, any power in any institution to ensure what emanated from the Indian parliament, sanctified by the requisite number of state legislatures, holds the field,” Mr Dhankhar added.
The Congress took a swipe at the BJP-led Centre over the issue, saying the fire brigade is doing a better job in recovering unaccounted cash than the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Congress’s media and publicity department head Pawan Khera said the discovery of such a huge amount of cash from the judge’s house is a very serious matter, adding that it cannot be hushed up by transferring him.
“Justice Varma was hearing the Unnao rape case and many other serious cases. To maintain the country’s faith in the judiciary, it is important to find out whose money it is and why it was given to the judge,” Mr Khera said in a post in Hindi on X.
“While removing the blindfold from the eyes of the goddess of justice, a former CJI had said the law is not blind, it looks at everyone equally. This should also be proved in this case. By the way, the fire brigade is doing a better job than the ED and the CBI,” he added.
Talking to reporters, Congress MP Manish Tewari said, “Well, the report that has appeared in the public space, if it is correct, it is a very serious matter. Going by the report, the Supreme Court collegium seems to have taken cognisance of the matter. So let us wait and see as to what the Supreme Court collegium decides about the matter.”
The five-member collegium headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna held an urgent meeting following the reported incident and decided to initiate the process of shifting Justice Varma out of the Delhi High Court. Justice Varma’s proposed transfer can come into effect after the Centre accepts the collegium’s recommendation, which is yet to be sent officially.
Both the BJP and Congress are united in their criticism of the judge and raising questions through social media as well as demanding answers. While the incidents triggered debates on the collegium system, a fundamental question remains – in the case of “ordinary” people, unaccounted cash of such a magnitude would automatically trigger FIRs and income tax (I-T) raids. Does the law – Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) – exempt sitting judges?
Beyond political statements, the incident raises tough questions: Whose cash was it? Why was there no immediate FIR or I-T action? And, was the sudden fire a mere coincidence or to destroy evidence? It has brought into sharp focus the question of judicial transparency and whether any position of power should override principles of law and due process.
Questions also asked as to why there was no FIR or even a basic police diary to establish if the fire was arson or caused by a short circuit. Even though Justice Varma, in his defence, denied having any knowledge about the cash, there is no police probe yet to determine whose cash it was? There is, meanwhile, loads of unverified information, photos, and clips flooding social media.
A large number of retired judges, senior I-T and Enforcement Directorate officials, as well as senior advocates of the SC and High Courts unanimously agreed that the law must be seen as equal and impartial, especially for those entrusted with interpreting it.
“A judge cannot evade responsibility – how the cash arrived at his premises demands answers. No justification can override moral accountability; he should have resigned for the sanctity of the judiciary. For any ordinary citizen, such a case would trigger FIRs under the Prevention of Corruption Act, PMLA, and IT Act, with prompt action,” a senior advocate and political leader said.
“The police are compelled to investigate ownership, possession, and culpability. Once law enforcement is aware of cash that prima facie appears ill-gotten, why have they not established ownership or possession? If it indicates a culpable crime, under which section is it being addressed? What prevents the police or IT authorities from acting?” a retired judge asked.
As the controversy raged, a senior advocate of the Allahabad HC also demanded a CBI inquiry. “A CBI inquiry is essential – there’s clearly something fishy here. It is not just what we are seeing; there’s something else beneath the surface. Has someone been made a scapegoat? The collegium system must not shield anyone. Only a detailed, transparent inquiry can restore faith,” the senior advocate said.
The controversy over the incident has reignited the debate over the collegium system and the alleged lack of accountability in judicial appointments. “It would have been different had the NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) Act been in place. Every procedure and mechanism would have ensured accountability. But it was struck down. Had that system existed, such situations could have been handled transparently. Ad hocism is not going to do any good to the sanctity or credibility of the judiciary,” said Justice L Narasimha Reddy, a former chief justice of the Patna High Court and ex-chairperson of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
