New Delhi | With Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituting a three-member panel to probe the discovery of "four to five semi-burnt sacks" of Indian currency notes after a fire incident at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, the in-house procedure has entered the crucial second-stage whose findings will decide the fate of the judge.

The fire incident 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 CJI constituted the three-member panel after the Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya in his report dated March 21 and made public on Saturday evening called for a "deeper probe" into the allegations.

The three-member inquiry committee formed by the CJI consists of Justices Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court), G S Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court) and Karnataka High Court judge Anu Sivaraman.

However, no timeline has been fixed for the inquiry committee to conclude the probe.

In 2014, while dealing with a case of alleged sexual harassment of a subordinate court judge in Madhya Pradesh at the behest of a sitting judge of the high court, the top court laid down the in-house procedure meant to probe the allegations against a judge of the constitutional courts.

It said in the first stage of the in-house procedure, the prima facie veracity of the allegations contained in the complaint is ascertained.

"If so, whether a deeper probe is called for. The first stage does not contemplate an in-depth examination of the allegations. It requires merely an assessment based on the contents of the complaint, and the response of the concerned judge.

"All that the Chief Justice of the High Court is required to do, is to determine whether a deeper probe is required. This is to be done, on the basis of a logical assessment made on a consideration of the response of the concerned Judge (with reference to the allegations levelled in the complaint)," it had said.

The top court had said it is the "second stage of the in-house procedure" relating to sitting judges of high courts which could lead to serious consequences.

The second stage is monitored by none other than the CJI, it had said.

Only if the Chief Justice of India endorses the view expressed by the Chief Justice of the high court, that a deeper probe is called for, he would constitute a "three-member Committee", and thereby take the investigative process to the second stage.

This committee will comprise two Chief Justices of the High Courts (other than the concerned High Court), besides a Judge of a High Court. The second stage postulates a deeper probe, it had said.

The top court had said even though the three-member panel is at liberty to devise its own procedure, the inherent requirement provided for is that the procedure evolved should be in consonance with the rules of natural justice.

"Herein, for the first time, the authenticity of the allegations is to be probed on the basis of an inquiry.

"The incumbents of the three-member Committee would have no nexus with the concerned judge. Not only would the concerned judge have a fair opportunity to repudiate the allegations levelled against him, even the complainant would have the satisfaction that the investigation would not be unfair. The in-house procedure was devised to ensure exclusion of favouritism, prejudice or bias," it had said.

The top court had also enumerated different steps that are to be followed during the in-house procedure for probing into the allegations against a sitting high court judge.

It said on the culmination of the inquiry, conducted by the panel, it shall record its conclusions and a report be furnished to the CJI.

The top court had said that the report of the panel could lead to one of the following conclusions -- that, there is no substance in the allegations levelled against the concerned judge; or that there is sufficient substance in the allegations levelled against the judge.

"In such eventuality, the three-member Committee, must further opine, whether the misconduct levelled against the concerned Judge is so serious, that it requires initiation of proceedings for the removal of the concerned Judge; or that, the allegations contained in the complaint are not serious enough to require initiation of proceedings for the removal of the concerned Judge," it had said.

The top court had said if the panel arrives at the conclusion, that the misconduct is not serious enough for initiation of proceedings for the removal of the judge concerned, the CJI would advise the judge, and may also direct, that the report of the panel be placed on record.

"If the three-member Committee has concluded, that there is substance in the allegations, for initiation of proceedings, for the removal of the concerned judge, the Chief Justice of India shall proceed as under:- (i) The concerned judge will be advised, by the Chief Justice of India, to resign or to seek voluntary retirement. (ii) In case the concerned Judge does not accept the advice of the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of India, would require the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, not to allocate any judicial work, to the concerned Judge," the top court had said.

Making an exception in this case, CJI Sanjiv Khanna had asked the Delhi High Court chief justice not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma for the time being.

The 2014 verdict said that in the eventuality of the judge concerned not abiding by the advice of the CJI to resign, then the CJI would intimate the President of India, and the Prime Minister of India, of the findings of the three-member Committee, warranting initiation of proceedings for his removal.

The 25-page inquiry report of Justice Upadhyaya, uploaded on the apex court's website, contains two short notes in Hindi that mention that after the fire at the storeroom of Justice Varma's residence on March 14 was doused, four to five half-burnt sacks containing currency notes were found. The report said prima facie, it seemed that a short-circuit had led to the fire.

The video, also shared by Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora with Justice Upadhyaya, clearly shows burnt cash and firefighters dousing the flames.

Justice Varma has, in his response, strongly denounced the allegations and said no cash was ever placed in the storeroom either by him or any of his family members.

New Delhi | Legal experts on Sunday lauded Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna's decision to put crucial documents relating to a controversy surrounding alleged discovery of cash from Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma's residence in the public domain and constituting an in-house committee to further inquire into the matter.

While senior advocate Sanjay Hegde said the CJI must be commended for enforcing openness and putting things out in the public domain, senior lawyer Indira Jaising expressed satisfaction over the setting up of the in-house inquiry panel and said people should wait for its outcome.

Saluting the wisdom of the CJI and other members of the Supreme Court collegium for releasing the inquiry report of Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, senior advocate Adish C Aggarwala said, "Let the in-house committee make an independent inquiry and submit the report to the chief justice of India for taking appropriate decisions."

Hegde, who described a video of the purported currency-discovery incident as "deeply distressing", said irrespective of the question of innocence or guilt of the judge concerned, the very fact that so much money is ostensibly being seen burnt in proximity to his house raises many questions.

"It also tends to lower the image of the judiciary. Irrespective of the question of guilt or innocence, I think a full inquiry and corrective action is required. The chief justice of India must be commended for enforcing openness and putting things out in the public domain.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant. This shows that even if there are distressing facts, the judiciary is open about it and the process of law will take over," Hegde added.

Jaising said her only demand was for complete transparency in the functioning of the collegium and added that the citizens of India have a right to know what is going on.

"I am satisfied with the action that has been taken by the chief justice of India in setting up the in-house inquiry committee. All of us need to await the outcome of that inquiry. I also believe that the judge in question has a right to natural justice and he is as much entitled to his point of view as anyone else," she said.

Jaising said when police were informed about the fire, it was their duty to register an FIR so that they could check if there was an arson.

"We do not know whether this fire was actually lit by somebody or whether it was accidental. They are vital witnesses to what happened, because nobody was there. The judge in question was not there. The chief justice of the high court was not there. The chief justice of India was not there. The only people who were on the scene of crime were the staff and therefore, they have a critical role to play in this inquiry," she added.

Aggarwala requested the Centre to accept the Supreme Court collegium's proposal to transfer Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court.

He said this will help in conducting an independent inquiry as the witnesses will give statements free from any fear.

He further said this will also provide an opportunity to Justice Varma to start his judicial work at the Allahabad High Court.

Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju said he knows the last three generations of Justice Varma and believes that the allegations against him are not true.

"The chief justice of India has formed a three-member committee of three chief justices (of high courts) who will probe the incident. I cannot say much because investigations are underway and Justice Varma's version has come in. We need to wait for the committee's findings," he said.

Justice Katju further said, "I have known his family for the last three generations.... I am from Allahabad too and his family is highly reputed. I think these allegations against him are not right."

When the matter of alleged cash discovery came to light on March 21, it drew strong reactions from legal experts, who questioned the collegium's decision on Justice Varma's transfer and demanded his resignation.

While senior advocate Vikas Singh called the matter "very serious" and said the judge should be asked to resign, senior lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi said the apex court should hold an in-house inquiry and ascertain all facts after offering an opportunity to the judge to present his version of the events.

Advocate Kamini Lau, a retired Delhi district court judge, said the shocking incident struck the very foundation of public trust in the judiciary and was "profoundly demoralising" for the legal fraternity.

In an unprecedented move, the top court, late on Saturday evening, uploaded on its website the inquiry report of Justice Upadhyaya -- complete with photos and videos -- regarding the alleged discovery of a substantial amount of cash from Justice Varma's residence.

Justice Upadhyaya's report to the CJI contains material with regard to official communication that says four to five semi-burnt sacks of Indian currency notes were found from the judge's Lutyens' Delhi residence.

Justice Varma has strongly denounced the allegations in the currency-discovery row and said no cash was ever placed in the storeroom of his residence either by him or any of his family members.

In his response to the Delhi High Court CJ, Justice Varma has said the allegation of cash discovery from his residence clearly appears to be a "conspiracy to frame and malign him".