Justice Yashwant Varma Seeks Anonymity in SC Petition Against Dismissal Over Cash Found at Residence

New Delhi (India) July 28: In a surprising move, Justice Yashwant Varma hides his identity in his Supreme Court petition. The petition contests the conclusions of an inquiry panel that suggested his dismissal. 

Petition Filed as 'XXX vs Union of India'

The case "XXX vs The Union of India" is listed on Monday's Supreme Court cause list. In this case, XXX stands for Justice Varma. Varma in his petition asks the Supreme Court to allow him to remain anonymous.

Although it is not unusual for petitioners to use 'XXX' to conceal their identities. The rape survivors or victims of sexual assault typically use it. It is also used in cases where minors and juveniles are involved to keep their identities hidden.

The plea will be heard by a bench consisting of Justices Augustine George Masih and Dipankar Datta.

Justice Varma was moved to the Allahabad High Court after the cash was discovered. He claims in his petition that if his application was denied, he will suffer permanent harm and loss.

He maintains that the in-house investigation was intended to be private because he is a sitting High Court judge.

Concerns Over Reputation and Media Leaks

The judge is facing impeachment proceedings in Parliament. He states that revealing his identity in the public eye at this point would be harmful to his reputation and dignity. It is particularly because the accusations against him have not yet been proven.

According to Justice Varma, there has already been biased coverage of him. It happens as a result of media leaks of private documents. The documents pertain to the internal investigation.

The cash stash was discovered on March 14 when a fire broke out at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. At that time, Justice Varma was not at his house.

Inquiry Panel Found 'Sufficient Substance'

The Supreme Court-appointed internal inquiry panel concludes that the accusations against the judge had "sufficient substance." It was determined that the room containing the cash was actively controlled by Justice Varma and his relatives.

Justice Varma petitions the Supreme Court on July 18 to have the in-house inquiry report and the then-CJI's recommendation to dismiss him quashed.

Justice Varma vehemently denies the accusations. He claims that they are unfounded and a part of a dark plot against him. 

He defends himself by saying that the storeroom was a common space. It is occasionally used by domestic help rather than a private room that belonged to him alone.

Varma also says that there was no CCTV footage that could be used to identify him and no stock or seizure reports that described the cash. There is no logical reason why the money would have been lost.

Aadrika Tayal