Where did burnt cash from Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence vanish? Judge’s panel has no clear answer

What happened to the ₹500 notes that were seen burning at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma in March 2025?

A three-member judges inquiry committee that probed the matter has not come out with any clear answers, due to the lack of conclusive evidence. 

However, the panel report does raise questions over the role of the judge’s staff in disappearance of the burnt cash. It reveals that the police failed to seize the burnt cash as there was no clear instruction to do so.

The panel has said that non-seizure and absence of panchnama were lapses on part of the police officials present on the spot. It, however, attributed the lapses to the “sensitive” nature of the matter involving a then sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. 

“This lapse should be viewed in the light of the fact that this occurrence happened at the official residence of a Sitting Judge of a High Court and the police and fire officials were fully cognizant of this fact,” the panel said.

The inquiry committee report tabled before the parliament today said that the charges of possession of substantial unexplained cash at Justice Varma's official residence, interference with material evidence and furnishing evasive explanations were proved.

Justice Varma was a Delhi High Court judge when the incident took place. He is currently a judge of the Allahabad High Court; his resignation has not yet been accepted by the President.

Justice Varma’s defence before the panel was that in absence of the incriminating material, it could not be conclusively determined whether the witnesses had seen genuine Indian currency notes or something else.

What did the police tell the panel?

Delhi Police Head Constable Roop Chand is stated to have told the panel that he did not seize the burnt cash “having regard to the sensitivity of the issue as it related to a sitting judge of the High Court”. 

Chand also said he was acting under instructions of the SHO of Tughlaq Road police station, Umesh Malik, and that the place of fire was not sealed as it was within the judge’s residence where security guards stood already deployed.

He also said that there was no instruction from higher officials to take any further steps in the matter. SHO Malik accepted that Chand acted on his instructions, one of which was to take photographs and videos of the inside of the place of fire.

While the panel held these omissions to be a lapse, it opined that there was overwhelming evidence in the form of testimony of several official statements revealing that there were ₹500 denomination currency notes in the storeroom where the fire had broken out.

However, it also acknowledged that due to the non-seizure, it was not possible to know the exact amount or carry out physical verification of the notes. 

Where did the burnt cash vanish?

The panel rejected the suggestions of Justice Varma that if currency notes were present, they may have been removed by the fire or police personnel. It called the suggestions a defence strategy based on hypothesis. 

“The judge has not disclosed his source of information that these officials have taken away the money. These suggestions coming from the judge does not appeal to logic,” the report stated.

The panel report recorded a witness statement of one CG Rawat, who was on duty at the official residence's gate, revealing that Justice Varma’s Private Secretary Rajinder Karki along with another staff member Mohd Rahil were carrying out cleaning work at the site after the fire was extinguished. Rawat told the panel that his offer for assistance was declined. 

This statement, as per the panel, has to be viewed along with the call detail records which show Justice Varma was in contact with Karki and Rahil around the relevant time. 

“This circumstance materially bears upon the explained interval between discovery and non-availability,” the panel report stated.

In this context, the panel said that the natural question would be what was communicated by the judge to Karki and Rahil around this time. The physical absence of the judge from Delhi, therefore, cannot by itself answer this part of the case, the panel opined.

The report added that Rawat’s statement about the cleaning of debris assumes significance as he was asked to do his job at the gate when he offered his help to Karki and Rahil. While the panel said that it would not treat this as a proof of removal, the exclusion of a security personnel from the site is relevant to the issue of whether the site was tampered with.

“Once currency notes had been seen by officials, the exclusion of another security personnel from the immediate vicinity of the storeroom during subsequent cleaning is relevant to the question whether the evidentiary condition of the room was preserved.”

The report further stated that the absence of a clear explanation assumes serious evidentiary value and an adverse inference can be drawn against Justice Varma in this regard.

While the panel report made it clear that it was not recording a finding that any particular individual physically removed the currency notes, an inference could be drawn that Karki and Rahil had acted on instructions of the judge.