Justice Yashwant Varma withdraws from cash-pile probe after resignation| India Information
In a strongly worded communication to the Lok Sabha-constituted inquiry committee, Allahabad excessive courtroom decide Yashwant Varma has alleged that the proceedings in opposition to him have been vitiated by “unfairness” from the very inception, asserting that historical past would in the future decide the way through which a sitting constitutional courtroom decide was handled.
The letter, dated April 9, was despatched on the identical day Justice Varma tendered his resignation to President Draupadi Murmueffectively bringing to an in depth the parliamentary inquiry into allegations arising from the restoration of unaccounted money at his official residence in Delhi following a hearth incident in March 2025.
In his 13-page letter, Justice Varma contended that the proceedings in opposition to him earlier than the committee have been marred by severe procedural lapses, absence of credible proof, and a “predetermined” strategy that led to his public vilification even earlier than he was heard. The committee comprised Supreme Courtroom decide Aravind Kumar, Bombay excessive courtroom chief justice Shree Chandrashekhar and senior advocate BV Acharya.
The letter, accessed by HT, laid out an in depth critique of how the inquiry unfolded, arguing that the method itself fell wanting the requirements of equity anticipated in proceedings involving a sitting constitutional courtroom decide.
He asserted that the inquiry was “marked by unfairness from its very inception”, suggesting that the end result appeared pre-judged and that the method turned a formality moderately than a real fact-finding train.
The decide complained that he was not afforded a significant and efficient alternative to defend himself, alleging that key procedural safeguards, which have been central to making sure equity in quasi-judicial proceedings, have been both diluted or ignored. In keeping with him, the way through which the inquiry progressed created an impression that his guilt had been presumed on the outset.
Justice Varma’s letter hinged considerably on what he describes because the absence of dependable and legally tenable proof. He questioned the evidentiary foundation of the proceedings, notably the reliance on video recordings purportedly displaying money at his official residence. He additionally identified that these recordings have been made in his absence, with out his information, and with none formal course of guaranteeing their authenticity or integrity.
Elevating considerations concerning the chain of custody, he prompt that the fabric relied upon by the committee lacked the safeguards essential to encourage confidence. He additional emphasised that no direct hyperlink had been established between him and the alleged money, calling into query the foundational premise of the inquiry.
The letter claimed that he was not given ample alternative to check the proof in opposition to him or to successfully current his model of occasions, apart from suggesting that the method lacked transparency, with vital steps unfolding with out his full information or participation.
A good portion of the letter has been dedicated to what Justice Varma described as his public “vilification” within the wake of the incident.
He pointed to the fast circulation of movies and the emergence of a “sensational narrative” that, in his view, portrayed him as culpable with none adjudication. The truth that such materials entered the general public area, together with being positioned on the web site of the Supreme Courtroom of India, solely deepened the bias in opposition to him, he prompt.
Justice Varma lamented that this trial by media, coupled with the way through which the inquiry was performed, successfully eroded the presumption of innocence and precipitated irreparable harm to his popularity.
On deserves, Justice Varma reiterated his categorical denial of any reference to the alleged money found at his residence following a hearth incident in March 2025.
He maintained that the storeroom in query was not beneath his direct use and that the occasions resulting in the restoration occurred in his absence. He additional pressured that no proof had been produced to determine his possession, possession, or information of the money.
“I withdraw with the deepest disappointment, aware of the gravity of my determination and with the hope that historical past will in the future file the unfairness with which a sitting Excessive Courtroom Decide was handled and that has marked this complete episode from its inception,” his letter concluded.
Leave a Reply