The Mystery of Missing Burnt Cash
In a perplexing case that has captivated legal circles, the fate of ₹500 notes allegedly seen burning at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma remains unresolved. In March 2025, this incident led to the formation of a three-member judges’ inquiry committee. Despite thorough investigations, the committee’s report reveals no definitive conclusions, primarily due to insufficient evidence.
Committee’s Findings and Concerns
The inquiry report does, however, cast doubt on the involvement of Justice Varma’s staff in the disappearance of the burnt cash. The report highlights the police’s failure to seize the burnt notes, attributing this oversight to the absence of clear directives. The committee identified the lack of a panchnama and non-seizure of evidence as significant lapses by the police on the scene.
According to the panel, these lapses should be understood in the context of the incident occurring at the official residence of a then-sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. The police and fire officials were aware of the sensitivity of the situation, which may have influenced their actions.
Judges Inquiry Committee Report
The committee’s report, presented to Parliament today, confirms charges against Justice Varma regarding the possession of unexplained cash at his official residence, hindrance of material evidence, and providing unclear explanations. At the time of the incident, Justice Varma served as a Delhi High Court judge and currently holds a position at the Allahabad High Court. His resignation remains pending acceptance by the President.
In his defense, Justice Varma argued that in the absence of incriminating evidence, it could not be conclusively established whether witnesses observed legitimate Indian currency notes.
More Read
Police Testimonies and Lapses
During the inquiry, Delhi Police Head Constable Roop Chand testified that he refrained from seizing the burnt cash due to the issue’s sensitive nature involving a sitting High Court judge. Chand disclosed that he acted under instructions from SHO Umesh Malik of Tughlaq Road police station, and the fire location was not sealed as it was within the judge’s residence with security already in place.
SHO Malik corroborated Chand’s account, explaining that Chand was instructed to document the scene through photographs and videos. While the panel acknowledged these omissions as lapses, it found substantial evidence, including official testimonies, indicating the presence of ₹500 notes in the storeroom where the fire occurred. However, the lack of seizure made it impossible to ascertain the exact amount or verify the notes physically.
Speculations and Inferences
The panel dismissed Justice Varma’s suggestions that fire or police personnel might have removed any currency notes, labeling these as hypothetical defenses. The report stated that the judge failed to substantiate claims of officials taking the money, which seemed illogical.
More Read
The panel included a witness account from CG Rawat, stationed at the residence’s gate, who reported that Justice Varma’s Private Secretary Rajinder Karki and another staff member, Mohd Rahil, were observed cleaning the site post-fire. Rawat’s offer to assist was declined, raising questions about the activities during this interval.
Call detail records indicated communication between Justice Varma and his staff during this period, prompting the panel to question what was conveyed between them. Although Justice Varma’s absence from Delhi was noted, it did not sufficiently address these concerns.
Implications and Conclusions
The panel emphasized that Rawat’s statement regarding debris cleaning held significance, especially as he was excluded from assisting at the site. This exclusion raised suspicions about potential tampering with the scene.
The absence of a clear explanation for the missing cash led the panel to draw an adverse inference against Justice Varma. While the panel refrained from accusing any individual of physically removing the notes, it suggested that Karki and Rahil might have acted under the judge’s directive.
