The Supreme Court has denied an RTI request for the in-house inquiry report on cash recovery at Justice Yashwant Varma’s house, citing judicial independence and confidentiality.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has refused to make public the findings of an internal inquiry into the recent cash recovery allegations linked to Justice Yashwant Varma. The inquiry report was requested under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by Maharashtra-based advocate Amritpal Singh Khalsa, but his plea was rejected.
Khalsa had also asked for a copy of the letter sent by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to the President and the Prime Minister, in which the CJI reportedly recommended Justice Varma’s removal.
On May 21, the Supreme Court’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Himani Sarad, officially turned down the RTI application which had been submitted on May 9. She explained that the information cannot be shared because it falls under the protected categories defined in a past judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
In her reply, Additional Registrar Himani Sarad stated:
“The information cannot be provided in view of tests outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 13.11.2019 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.10044-45/2010 (CPIO, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481) viz. independence of judiciary, proportionality test, fiduciary relationship, invasion of the right to privacy and breach of duty of confidentiality etc. with reference to provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
Background
The issue began when a fire broke out at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma in Delhi on the evening of March 14. During the fire, firefighters reportedly found bundles of unaccounted cash. A video soon surfaced showing these bundles of cash burning in the fire.
ALSO READ: Notable Judgments by Justice Yashwant Varma: Delhi High Court
At the time of the incident, Justice Varma and his wife were not in Delhi—they were travelling in Madhya Pradesh. Only his daughter and elderly mother were present at the house when the fire occurred.
The video of the cash burning led to serious allegations of corruption against the judge. However, Justice Varma denied the charges and called it a “conspiracy to frame him.”
Following the controversy, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna launched an in-house investigation and set up a three-member committee on March 22 to look into the matter.
The inquiry committee was comprised of:
- Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court
- Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court
- Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of Karnataka High Court
The panel started the probe on March 25 and completed it by May 4, submitting its report to the Chief Justice of India.
According to sources, after receiving the report, CJI Khanna asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment. However, Justice Varma refused to step down.
As a result, CJI Khanna forwarded the report and Justice Varma’s reply to both the President of India and the Prime Minister, recommending the judge’s removal.
The Supreme Court refused to disclose the report under RTI, citing its earlier ruling in the Subhash Chandra Agarwal case. The court emphasized the importance of protecting judicial independence and confidentiality in such sensitive matters.
The court referred to the provisions of:
- Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act (information held in fiduciary capacity)
- Section 11(1) of the RTI Act (third-party information disclosure)
The Supreme Court has made it clear that certain types of information, especially those related to judicial conduct and internal communications, cannot be disclosed without breaching important ethical and legal safeguards.
Following the investigation and allegations, Justice Varma has been sent back to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court. Furthermore, his judicial work has been withdrawn until further action is decided.
View Order Copy
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
