In an unusual legal development, Justice Yashwant Varma has moved the Supreme Court under the anonymised title “XXX vs Union of India,” challenging the findings of an in-house inquiry panel that recommended his removal. The petition has drawn attention for the judge’s decision to conceal his identity — a move typically reserved for survivors of sexual assault, juveniles, or other sensitive parties.
According to the Supreme Court’s cause list for Monday, the case has been filed under the pseudonym “XXX,” with Justice Varma seeking permission for non-disclosure of his name due to the sensitive and confidential nature of the matter.
Justice Varma Cites Dignity, Media Leaks in Plea for Anonymity
Justice Varma’s plea highlights the potential “irreparable loss and injury” he could suffer if his identity were publicly revealed. He argued that the in-house inquiry proceedings were meant to remain confidential, especially given his status as a sitting High Court judge.
ALSO READ: Cash stack at Justice Yashwant Varma residence, amidst 2018 sugar mill fraud case
In the petition, Justice Varma said that the premature public disclosure of his identity, when “allegations are yet to be established,” would negatively affect his dignity and reputation. He also pointed out that past media leaks of confidential documents had led to “distorted reportage” against him.
Background: Cash Recovery and Inquiry Report
The controversy erupted on March 14, when a large cash stash was discovered at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi following a fire. Though he was not present at the time, the incident triggered an internal probe.
A Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry panel later concluded that “sufficient substance” existed in the allegations, noting that Justice Varma and his family had “active control” over the room where the cash was found. Based on this, the then Chief Justice of India recommended his removal, and impeachment proceedings in Parliament were initiated.
On July 18, Justice Varma approached the Supreme Court, challenging both the inquiry report and the recommendation for his removal. In his submission, he alleged that the inquiry process was procedurally flawed, lacked a formal complaint, and was based on presumptive queries rather than substantiated evidence.
