"Billiges Publikum": SC lehnt SIT-Untersuchung nach nicht abgerechnetem Bargeld von Richter Varma ab

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition requesting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash at the residence of former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma. The bench, comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, described the plea as an attempt for "cheap publicity." The case centers around cash found during a fire at Varma's official residence in Delhi on March 14, 2025, while he was still serving as a judge at the Delhi High Court. Varma claimed he was in Bhopal at the time and denied ownership of the cash, which was later linked to his eventual transfer to the Allahabad High Court. The controversy surrounding Varma intensified following the discovery of the cash, leading to discussions about potential disciplinary action. In April 2025, more than two months after Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju announced the initiation of impeachment proceedings, Varma resigned from his position. The petitioner in the current plea argued that Varma could not claim immunity from criminal liability simply because he had resigned. They requested the filing of a first information report (FIR) against him, citing previous instances where such petitions were dismissed due to lack of prior complaints. The Supreme Court had previously released a report, complete with video footage and photographs, depicting bundles of currency allegedly recovered from Varma's home. This report was accompanied by a letter from Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, dated March 21, 2025, urging Varma to explain the presence of the cash in one of the rooms of his bungalow. At the time, Varma had refused to resign voluntarily, prompting the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, to forward the final inquiry committee report regarding the incident to the President and Prime Minister. The inquiry committee's findings indicated that there was "sufficient substance" to the allegations against Varma, deeming his misconduct serious enough to warrant the initiation of removal proceedings. The report, dated May 3, 2025, emphasized the gravity of the situation, suggesting that formal impeachment procedures should be considered. To proceed with impeachment, a motion must be signed by either 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. Once the motion is accepted in both houses, a three-member judicial committee conducts an investigation. If the committee confirms misconduct, the matter is put to a vote in Parliament. Should the motion secure two-thirds majority support, the President is advised to remove the judge accordingly. On July 25, Rijiju confirmed that the decision to impeach Varma was unanimous, with 152 MPs from both the ruling coalition and opposition parties endorsing the motion. On August 12, the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, established a three-member committee consisting of Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Shrivastava, and advocate B Vasudeva Acharya to conduct the investigation. Despite assurances from Birla that the committee would submit its report promptly, delays occurred as Varma contested the legality of the inquiry in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected Varma's challenge to the inquiry committee on January 16, clearing the path for further proceedings. However, the recent dismissal of the plea for a SIT probe indicates that the legal avenues concerning Varma's case remain complex and multifaceted, with ongoing implications for judicial accountability and transparency within the Indian judiciary.