NEW DELHI: Despite Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna’s swift decision to order a judicial inquiry into allegations of cash being found at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence, the three-member panel tasked with the probe faces a complex and time-consuming investigation. The inquiry involves examining multiple individuals and requires expert assistance to analyze the judge’s call data records (CDR).
The inquiry panel includes Punjab & Haryana Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court’s Justice Anu Sivaraman — all seasoned judges with extensive experience in constitutional courts. The panel’s immediate task is to prepare a list of individuals to be examined, including:
- First responders to the fire at Justice Varma’s residence on March 14.
- Security personnel stationed at the Tughlaq Crescent bungalow in the past six months.
- Staff, gardeners, and CPWD personnel with access to the storeroom.
The panel will seek forensic assistance to verify the authenticity of the video showing burnt cash, allegedly filmed by the first responders, and to determine whether the location captured in the video corresponds with the storeroom. Analyzing the call data records of phones used by Justice Varma, both in his official and personal capacity, will require expert input from the information technology and telecom sectors. Justice Varma has been instructed not to delete any data from his devices.
Justice Varma, citing a statement from the Delhi fire chief that “no cash was found at the judge’s residence,” has defended himself, but the chief later retracted his statement. The fire chief may be summoned to explain the basis of his initial remarks and subsequent reversal. Additionally, security personnel who alleged that debris and half-burnt articles were removed by the judge’s staff on March 15 — a claim denied by Justice Varma — will also be questioned.
The Delhi Police Commissioner had informed Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyay on March 15 that the storeroom was adjacent to the guard room manned by the Central Reserve Police Force (Battalion 70F) and was kept locked. However, Justice Varma maintained that the storeroom, used for storing discarded household items, was accessible to staff, gardeners, and CPWD personnel.
Delhi HC CJ Upadhyay’s initial inquiry concluded that, “Prima facie, there was no possibility of access to the room by anyone other than those residing in the bungalow or authorized personnel.” This finding has strengthened the need for a more detailed investigation into the matter.
In his defense, Justice Varma reiterated, “No one from my household ever reported seeing any burnt currency, and we were not informed of any recovery or seizure at the site.” He further pointed to the fire chief’s initial statement, which, according to him, corroborated his stance.
With multiple angles to investigate and conflicting narratives to untangle, the panel’s task is expected to be arduous and exhaustive.
