Bar & Bench has accessed the report of in-house committee constituted to probe the allegations of cash discovery at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma in March this year.

The committee 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 has made damning conclusions against Justice Varma and has rebuffed his claims that the episode was a set up to frame him.

As per the report, cash was indeed found at the storeroom of Justice Varma's residence and two of his trusted domestic staff - Rahil/Hanuman Parshad Sharma and Rajinder Singh Karki - were instrumental in removing the burnt cash from the store room during the wee hours of March 15, 2025, sometime after the firemen/Delhi Police personnel had left the premises.

Below are ten important conclusions that the committee has arrived at:

1. 10 eye-witnesses saw half-burnt cash

As per the report, at least ten witnesses, all officials of the Delhi Fire Service and Delhi Police, told the committee that they saw half-burnt piles of cash in the storeroom of Justice Varma's house where fire had broken out.

2. Electronic evidence corroborates eye-witness accounts

In support of eye-witness evidence, electronic evidence in the shape of video recordings and still photographs duly authenticated by certificates issued by the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory at Chandigarh, are also available on record.

As per the report, the video taken at the spot has not been refuted by Justice Varma.

"At the end of the video Ex.V1, there is an audio reference to a person calling out the name of 'Rahil' the house staff employee and since the video being shot is at the entrance of the store room, Mr. Karki, has admitted in his examination that it might be his voice. Similarly when it was put to Rahil (Witness No.35) that his name is being called out, he admitted that it was Mr. Karki calling out to him. It is thus apparent that both Mr. Karki and Rahil were present in front of the store room and were eye witnesses to the factum of currency having been burnt and present in the store room and their explanation as such that they were kept away from the entrance of the store room by the fire personnel cannot be accepted," the report states.

3. Domestic staff of Justice Varma will not depose against him

The panel noted that the domestic staff employed by Justice Varma will not depose against him since they have been working for him and would remain loyal to him.

However, the statements of independent witnesses go against Justice Varma, the report noted.

"From the above evidence, it would be clear that the domestic staff has obviously not supported the version of any currency being present and affected at the time of fire incident for obvious reasons, whereas, there is independent corroboration from other official witnesses who were not closely associated with Justice Varma. Therefore, the reliance upon the statements of house staff by Justice Varma would be of no avail to him and there is no valid reason as such to disbelieve the statements of the independent witnesses who have no axe to grind, especially keeping in view the fact that they are not known to Justice Varma in any manner and had come to the house for the first time while exercising their duties," the report said.

4. Conduct of Justice Varma's daughter

The panel also flagged the wrong statement given by Justice Varma's daughter Diya Varma regarding the video and her knowledge of the half-burnt cash.

"There was a lame explanation given by her that the said room could be any other room at a different location and the witness has also refused to identify the voice of Rajender Singh Karki in Ex. V-1 which goes on to show that she is a hiding the said fact since Karki himself had admitted that it is his voice. The said witness No. 54 being the daughter of the Justice Yashwant Varma also deposed in her statement recorded on 07.04.2025 that she had come to know the news of the half-burnt cash found in the store room on 15.03.2025 when the PPS to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court had visited the bungalow," the report noted.

However, she later sought to retract these statements by addressing an email to the committee on April 12, 2025, claiming she was overwhelmed and panicked by the incidents of the fateful night.

But the committee chose to reject the same.

"From the demeanor of the witness, we noticed that she is a confident young woman, having been subjected to hostel life throughout her education apart from being an independent working woman. This belies her statement that she was totally overwhelmed and panicked."

5. Justice Varma's claims of CCTV data loss

One of the most important claims made by Justice Varma was that the entrance of the store room was constantly monitored by CCTV cameras that were under control of security personnel and that it was highly improbable that the cash was kept in the store room.

But he submitted that the hard disk of the camera footage was found not to be accessible and submitted that it was not his fault that the cameras were not working. He has also questioned the manner in which the CCTV hardware was retrieved.

However, there is nothing on record why the data was lost on account of the fact that the CCTV camera was sealed since the committee had called for the said hardware. Therefore, he pointed out that his defence has been lost and questioned whether the said hardware was properly sealed.

The committee chose to reject this argument, noting that the judge had ten whole days to secure the data before the committee ordered its sealing.

"The incident has taken place on 14th night and sealing of DVRs of the CCTV cameras had only been ordered by this committee on March 25, 2025 by addressing a letter to the Registrar General of Delhi High Court. The said exercise has been done after the Committee had carried out site inspection on 25.03.2025 and noticed presence of such CCTV camera at the spot as has been depicted in D-4. It was always open to Justice Varma as such to have got the data preserved, analyzed and scrutinized before this Committee had ordered the sealing, in case he had any plausible defence to further his conspiracy theory that the bags of currency were planted by someone else and area was accessible to one and all, not being part of the living area of the residential house. Thus, for a period of over ten days, the data was there to be preserved and could have been relied upon by him and help could have been taken to scrutinize the same to depict before this Committee that the store room was kept open and was open at the time of the fire incident and that he was not in station and not responsible for any material stored in the store room," the panel concluded.

6. Store room not accessible to all and sundry, cash cannot be planted

The committee concluded that the store room where the fire broke out, and where the cash was found, was very much within the premises of the judge's residence and the overall control and the permission to have access to the store room was undeniably with Justice Varma or his family members.

The claim by the judge that the store room was “very porous and open to all” and currency could have been planted to frame him cannot be accepted in view of the statements of the security personnel on duty, the panel said.

"In view of the categorical statement of the security personnel to the contrary that there was discipline maintained amongst them and 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 said.

It further noted that at least two CRPF personnel on guard duty at the residence told the panel 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”.

The tacit and active control of the access to the store room was with Justice Varma and his family members and well-monitored without any outsiders getting access to it without permission, the committee noted.

In this view of the matter, the objection of the store room being situated at a distance from the residential portion of the bungalow fades into insignificance.

7. No attempt by Justice Varma to report incident, quietly accepted transfer

The panel also noted that no attempt was made by Justice Varma or any member of his household to report the incident or to immediately secure the visuals from the CCTV cameras, even when he was told on March 17, 2025 that there were photos and videos of burnt cash in his premises.

The committee also said that post the incident, Justice Varma, knowing the inevitable, quietly accepted the proposal of transfer order to repatriate him to Allahabad High Court.

"The categorical acceptance on 20.03.2025 (Ex.P-17) immediately, without any demur and "respectfully accepting the decision of repatriation to Allahabad" would, in normal circumstances, only be done after discussion with family members at least and after an attempt to find out the reason for transfer, having served in Delhi High Court for the last three years."

8. Conspiracy theory of Justice Varma

In his written response, Justice Varma had referred to an earlier attempt made on social media to discredit him.

However, the committee discounted the same, stating,

"Neither any specific person has been named who is responsible for the planting or any instance or motive as to why he has been targeted had been put-forth in the said reply and neither before us, the said theory has been elaborated."

It also noted the contradictory statements by Justice Varma as regards the issue of access to the store room.

"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 report stated.

9. Cash unaccounted for, judge unable to explain

Having concluded that cash was recovered from the store room, the committee noted that Justice Varma was unable to account for the same.

"The factum of the burnt cash having been found in the store room was undeniably established and therefore, the burden shifted upon Justice Varma to account for the said cash/money by giving a plausible explanation which he failed to do except projecting a case of flat denial and raising a bald plea of conspiracy," the report noted.

"Where presence of burnt cash in the store room is established, it is for Justice Varma to account for the same by either successfully raising a defence of planting of cash in the store room which he failed to do or proving the defence of conspiracy theory by adducing evidence/material that the money/cash did not belong to him but to someone else by disclosing the identity of the real owner of the cash. Not having done so, Justice Varma cannot be helped," it further said.

10. Domestic staff removed the burnt cash

The final damning conclusion against Justice Varma was that two of his staff members removed the half-burnt cash after the fire service and police personnel left the premises.

"A conjunctive reading of the statements of eye witnesses, electronic evidence and the circumstantial evidence, which has come on record, as explained supra and the failure of Justice Varma and his personal staff to explain the omissions, contradictions and embellishment, noticed in their statements, this committee is compelled to hold by way of strong inferential evidence on record that the most trusted personnel of domestic staff i.e. Rahil/Hanuman Parshad Sharma and Rajinder Singh Karki, Private Secretary to Justice Varma were instrumental in removing the burnt money/cash from the store room during the wee hours of 15.03.2025 sometime after the firemen/Delhi Police personnel had left the premises," the report concluded.

Note: The story and report was exclusively shared by Maneesh Chhibber with Bar & Bench and Leaflet.

[Read Full Report]