The Supreme Court recently dismissed an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which sought access to the in-house inquiry committee’s report concerning allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma.

The request also included the letter sent by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to the President and Prime Minister forwarding the inquiry report.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court rejected the RTI application submitted on May 9 by Amritpal Singh Khalsa. The refusal was based on the principles established in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, along with Sections 8(1)(e) and 11(1) of the RTI Act.

Section 8(1)(e) exempts disclosure of information obtained through a fiduciary relationship unless the competent authority determines that the larger public interest justifies disclosure. Section 11 protects third-party information from being disclosed without consent.

In a reply dated May 21, the Supreme Court’s Additional Registrar and CPIO stated, “The information cannot be provided in view of the tests outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated November 13, 2019, in Civil Appeal Nos. 10044-45/2010 (CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481). These include considerations of judicial independence, proportionality, fiduciary duty, privacy rights, and confidentiality, in reference to Sections 8(1)(e) and 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

Earlier, on May 8, then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna had forwarded the inquiry report to the President and Prime Minister for further action.

The in-house committee was constituted on March 22 by the CJI, comprising Justices Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), GS Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Anu Sivaraman (Judge of Karnataka High Court). This followed reports of a large cash stash accidentally discovered in a store-room at the out-house of Justice Varma’s official residence during firefighting operations. At the time, Justice Varma was serving as a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. Following the controversy, he was transferred back to his parent High Court in Allahabad, and the CJI ordered the withdrawal of his judicial work.

While the preliminary report by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice, Justice Varma’s response, and related photographs and videos taken by Delhi Police were made public by uploading them on the Supreme Court website, the final inquiry report remains confidential.