On the night of March 14, 2025, remnants of burnt currency were found—for which a video is available—in the outhouse of the premises allotted to Justice Yashwant Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court.
This revelation raises serious questions which need to be answered. What was the quantum of currency that was found? Why was the currency not seized? Why was a panchnama not prepared by the Delhi Police present at the spot? Why was the outhouse not cordoned off to ensure that the scene of the incident was protected or secured? Why was the currency not preserved for inquiry and investigation? Why was an FIR not registered against unknown persons? To all these questions, the In-House Committee (“Committee”) set up by the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court provides no answers; they are otherwise unavailable.
For all these questions, the Committee says that these were not within its remit. In the absence of any explanation for why the police acted as they did, the Committee concluded that since the currency was found in the outhouse of the judge’s residence, it must have been placed there with the judge’s tacit or active consent.
The Committee consisted of two sitting Chief Justices and one judge of the High Court. It found no more than what was already available in the public domain in the form of videos recorded by the fire services department. Justice Varma had categorically stated that the currency did not belong to him and that he was not aware of who had placed it in the outhouse. The mainstream media has quoted various amounts of currency, ranging from `15 crore and beyond, in large bundles, which were found in the outhouse. The currency in the alleged quantum could not have entered the premises without the knowledge of the CRPF personnel stationed at his residence. Managing to cart large quantities of currency and placing it in the outhouse would necessarily have entailed the active involvement of several persons. No evidence to that effect was before the Committee, nor has it been alleged by anyone to date.
In fact, the issue became far more serious when it was revealed that a CCTV camera was placed in a security room at the entrance, constantly monitoring ingress into the premises. This CCTV apparatus was controlled by the security personnel and not by the family. When the CCTV camera was seized, the FSL report revealed that the hard disk was blank. This constitutes a major security lapse, as it is the State’s responsibility to protect the judge.
This again raises several vital questions. When did the CCTV camera stop working? Did the security personnel make any complaint in that regard? No answers are available. The Committee never investigated why such footage could not be retrieved. The person who placed the currency must have been aware that the CCTV equipment was not functioning. Surprisingly, the Committee blames the judge for not seizing and preserving the CCTV footage, assuming he knew and had control of the functioning of the CCTV. What authority did he have to seize the footage when it was never in his custody and control?
The Committee proceeds on the assumption and concludes that the keys of the outhouse were under the tacit or active control of the family, even though there was ample evidence that the keys were in the possession of the staff and not the family, as reflected in a paragraph of the Committee’s report. Part of the paragraph reads as follows: “50. What has further come on record in the shape of statements of witnesses No. 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 46 and 47 is that the storeroom was occasionally locked, and the key to the lock was accessible to all of the residents of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi including the security staff and the personal staff of Justice Yashwant Varma…”
This evidence was rejected, and contrary evidence was accepted without investigation, with a finding that the outhouse was under the tacit or active control of the family. What “tacit or active control” means is not clear.
The Committee placed the burden on the judge to provide evidence as to whom the currency belonged to. The burden of proof would only shift when a person is found in illegal possession of a substance prohibited by law. Admittedly, the judge was not in possession of the alleged currency.
The inquiry was conducted behind the judge’s back; no right to cross-examination was afforded, nor was he given a personal hearing when he demanded it from the Committee. The Committee had already started writing the report on April 27, 2025. The judge’s submissions made on April 30, 2025, were not addressed in the report.
The Committee further finds that the judge’s conduct in not going to the outhouse upon his return from Madhya Pradesh on the evening of March 15 and not protesting his transfer to the Allahabad High Court was unnatural and indicative of his guilt. What is intriguing is why the family was not infor med that currency was discovered in the outhouse, either by the fire services personnel or the Delhi police. In fact, the judge came to know about it only on March 17, when the video was shown to him.
There is also no direct or circumstantial evidence of the removal of the remnants of burnt currency from the premises after the fire services personnel and the police left the premises on the morning of March 15 at 2 am. However, the CRPF personnel remained on-site thereafter, yet none reported seeing staff remove currency. The Committee’s conclusions raised more questions than they answered. Such a flawed report must not be the basis of an impeachment motion without a thorough investigation.
I hope that the political parties stand up to an obvious endeavour by this government to decimate what is left of the independence of the Judiciary.
Kapil Sibal | Senior lawyer and member of Rajya Sabha
(Views are personal)
(Tweets @KapilSibal)
