A three-judge probe panel concluded that “cash/money was found in the storeroom of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi officially occupied by Justice (Yashwant) Varma” “the source of which could not be accounted for” and that the judge along with his family had “access to the storeroom (where the cash was kept) has been found”.
The report was prepared after the probe panel visited the scene where the fire broke out and examined 55 witnesses over 10 days.
“The half-burnt currency notes seen and found during the process of dousing of fire are highly suspicious items and more so are not of small amount or denomination which could not have been placed in the storeroom without the tacit or active consent of Justice Varma or his family members,” the panel concluded in its report submitted on May 3 to the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.
However, even as the damning report conclusively indicted Justice Varma for holding unaccounted cash at his official residence and recommended his impeachment, the judge refused to resign. Justice Varma, who was transferred to Allahabad High Court in the aftermath of the scandal told then CJI Khanna that resigning would mean accepting a “fundamentally unjust” procedure that denied him a personal hearing.
“To accept such advice would imply my acquiescence to a process and outcome that I respectfully consider to be fundamentally unjust and requiring reconsideration and review,” Justice Varma wrote in the May 6 letter to CJI Khanna.
What did the panel find?
The panel, constituted after unaccounted cash was found at Justice Varma’s residence when a fire broke out on March 14, was tasked with finding answers to three questions: was burnt currency found in the storeroom of Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi? Was the storeroom within the premises of the official residence? Can Justice Varma account for the cash found?
The panel—comprising Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Judge Anu Sivaraman—said “Yes” for the first two questions, and “He couldn’t” for the last.
Of the 55 witnesses, the probe panel found that at least 10 witnesses acknowledged having seen the burnt or half-burnt currency notes in the storeroom. In its 64-page report, the panel noted that its findings were shared with Justice Varma “in compliance of principles of natural justice” and every statement was video recorded “to ensure that the veracity of the same throughout could not be challenged at a subsequent point of time and also for confirmation whether such statements were in sum and substance recorded correctly”.
Several fire officials at the scene recalled seeing burnt and wet currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500. “As I entered, I noticed that on the right hand side and in front, there was large pile of cash only of Rs. 500/- denomination lying on the floor. I am not sure whether any such notes of Rs. 500/- denomination were there on the ledge or not. I was shocked and surprised such large amount of cash which was strewn on the floor, which I saw for the first time in my life,” one of the fire officials told the probe panel.
Another admitted that it was his voice on the viral video where he was reportedly heard saying “Mahatma Gandhi main aag lagi hai bhai”.
“After the smoke was reduced to some extent, the visibility was restored inside the room, I saw that there were stacks of half-burnt currency notes on the ground,” a third witness said. The currency notes appeared to have been kept in plastic bags, he added.
Was evidence destroyed?
The probe panel also examined whether there were attempts to cover up the burnt cash or destroy evidence. The committee concluded that Justice Varma’s “most trusted personnel of domestic staff” and his Private Secretary Rajinder Singh Karki “were instrumental in removing the burnt money/cash from the store room” in the wee hours of March 15 “sometime after the firemen/Delhi Police personnel had left the premises.”
Was the storeroom accessible to all?
The committee did not accept Justice Varma’s assertion that the storeroom was “very porous and open to all” after examining the personal staff at the official residence. While some staff members told the panel that the storeroom was not “habitually locked” though they had never been inside the room even as others “clearly stated that they have seen the door to the storeroom always locked and padlocked”.
The probe panel also relied on statements made by the security personnel on duty who said, “none could access the house without the permission of the family members”.
“Therefore, it is well nigh impossible for currency to be planted in the store room of a sitting Judge, which is being monitored by static 1+4 guard and a PSO stationed at the gate at all time, apart from the fact that the house abounds with a large number of old and trusted domestic servants with over six staff quarters,” the report read.
The probe panel also relied on statements of two CRPF personnel on guard duty that the “door of the store room was locked at the time of the fire and that they had assisted in breaking open the lock”.
“It is, therefore, evident that the door was kept locked and secured at the relevant time especially since Justice Varma and his wife were out of Station on a Holiday,” the 64-page report said.
Panel recommends impeachment
The three-judge panel concluded its probe by recommending the impeachment of Justice Varma who has since been transferred to Allahabad High Court and withheld from conducting any judicial work.
The panel said in the “absence of any plausible explanation” from Justice Varma or his family, this Committee is left with no option but to hold that the judge stashed unaccounted monies in his storeroom. “Whether this stashing was done with tacit or explicit consent of Justice Varma or his family members is of little significance in the face of larger concept of breach of public trust and property expected of the high constitutional office held by Justice Varma,” the panel held.
The committee also observed that Justice Varma or “any member of his household” failed to make an effort to “report the incident to any quarters or to immediately secure the visuals from the CCTV cameras and make them available in support of his contentions”.
The three-member panel also dismissed Justice Varma’s claim that he was being set up. “The unnatural conduct of Justice Yashwant Varma has already been noticed above and the fact that if there was any conspiracy theory why he chose not to file any complaint with the police officials or bring it to the notice of the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India regarding the fact that there were planted stories regarding the burning of currency notes in the store room which is part of his house?” the panel observed further noting that the judge, who was in Bhopal when the fire broke out, did not visit the storehouse immediately on his return.
