Late last week, an accidental fire at the home of a Judge of the High Court of Delhi Justice Yashwant Varma, chanced upon a stash pile of cash -- believed to be unaccounted cash of an unknown value. News of the incident quickly spread like wildfire prompting action from the upper echelons of the judiciary, while the judge in question has, for now, proceeded on leave. Since then, things have only gotten murky.
On one hand, the Delhi Fire Chief went on record to claim that no cash was found at the residence. Soon later, the Supreme Court made public its report which unequivocally stated that cash was indeed found at the High Court judge’s residence and sent him a notice asking him to explain the pile. On Sunday, news emerged that Justice Varma had denied knowledge of the unaccounted cash in question and had instead claimed that it was stored in a room of the house that was accessible to everyone, denying any responsibility for the find.
More than anything the twists and turns in the entire saga so far -- barely two days since the news broke -- have only served to expose how the system works -- not to get to the bottom of the matter, but only to try and protect the accused, or if not, to then obfuscate the situation in a manner that no one can bear responsibility or own up for the crime.
Let’s be clear that this is not a simple case of a government official being found with cash disproportionate to his known sources of income. This is a Judge -- of the High Court no less -- who has been found with unaccounted cash, stashed away at his home of a value that far, far exceeds what he would have earned in his entire lifetime.
What the country is now staring at is a trial of not just the single High Court judge but of the entire judicial system -- on how it reacts to the issue. Whether they close ranks to defend a brother judge whether they sacrifice the individual to protect the image of the judiciary or whether there is a sincere effort to get to the bottom of the matter.
In the past, the Supreme Court hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory, when it comes to acting against its own. In the case of former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who was accused of sexual harassment by a junior staffer, the matter was closed as a false case, with the Chief Justice himself sitting and disposing off the matter which involved him. This was in violation of every known judicial principle and precedent that no person can be a judge in his own case.
In this case, for now, there is a three-member committee appointed by the Supreme Court while the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been tasked with filing a preliminary report. Should an adverse conclusion be drawn, Justice Varma could be asked to resign and if he refuses, the matter could be forwarded to Parliament with a recommendation for impeachment.
There is yet hope that the ongoing process will be concluded in a free, fair and impartial manner in which not only is justice done, but also in which justice is seen to be done. The matter doesn’t have to stop there. The finding of unaccounted cash points to an act of corruption and raises a cloud of suspicion about his past conduct as a judge and all the rulings that he has delivered so far.
Judges are seen as leaders of society and are expected to maintain a public profile above suspicion. Justice Varma has failed on several counts. The penalty must be proportionate.
