On 26th May, 2025, the Supreme Court of India summarily rejected a Right to Information (RTI) application submitted on 9th May, 2025 by Maharashtra based advocate Amritpal Singh Khalsa, where he sought the report of an inquiry committee, which was established in-house, to look into allegations regarding Justice Yashwant Varma.
The RTI application also specifically sought the communication by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, headed to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi regarding the same inquiry report. The Supreme Court’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) heavily rejected it and referred to the 2019 judgment in Case CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, which concerns judicial independence, fiduciary relationships, privacy rights, and confidentiality under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. To some extent, the Supreme Court indicates that protecting a sensitive judicial process is warranted, and thus, for the time being, we cannot know.
Justice Varma’s controversy took off dramatically on March 14, 2025, when a storeroom at his official residence in Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi, caught fire, with him serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court. Reportedly, firefighters discovered a large pile of half-burnt money and announced that it was unaccounted wealth, and Justice Varma and his wife were out of town. Justice Varma would not agree to any wrongdoing, claiming it was a conspiracy to smear him.
CJI Sanjiv Khanna promptly constituted a three-member panel on March 22, comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, to investigate. The panel’s report, finalised on May 3, was forwarded to the President and Prime Minister on May 8, alongside Varma’s response, which denied the allegations. Meanwhile, Justice Varma was swiftly transferred to his parent Allahabad High Court, with judicial duties withdrawn, fueling further speculation.
The next steps remain uncertain as the Supreme Court staunchly guards the inquiry’s findings. Whether the executive or Parliament will act on the report, as hinted in the court’s statements, is a matter we must patiently await. The case continues to stir debate, balancing judicial integrity with public transparency, leaving observers curiously anticipating further developments.
