The three-member committee appointed by former Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna to investigate the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has concluded in its 64-page report that there was sufficient substance to initiate proceedings for the removal of the former Delhi High Court judge.
The committee comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court judge Anu Sivaraman.
After conducting a thorough investigation for more than 10 days through several sittings and visits to the scene of the accidental fire and examination of 55 witnesses, the committee said that cash/money was found in the store room of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi officially occupied by Justice (Yashwant) Varma and that the judge could not account for the source of the money.
The access to the store room (where the cash was kept) was found to be within the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members, it said, adding that by way of strong inferential evidence, it was established that the burnt cash/money was removed from the store room during the wee hours of March 15, 2025 from 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi
The committee said at least 10 witnesses acknowledged having seen burnt or half-burnt currency notes.
As part of its investigation, the panel came up with three questions.
To the question on whether burnt currency was found in the store room at 30 Tuglak Crescent, New Delhi, the committee replied in affirmative.
On whether the store house was within the premises of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi or not, it said yes.
The report further said that Justice Varma could not give a satisfactory answer to the presence of money/cash in the store room.
As per the report, the half-burnt currency notes seen and found during the process of dousing of fire were highly suspicious items and more so are not of small amount or denomination which could not have been placed in the store room without the tacit or active consent of Justice Varma or his family members.
The committee ruled that the objection of Justice Varma that was put to a disadvantage by having to disprove that the burnt currency notes were not found in the store room needed to be rejected at the very outset.
On whether the store house was within the premises of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi or not, the committee found that 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 objection of the store room being situated at a distance from the residential portion of the bungalow faded into insignificance, it added.
The committee said it was sharing every piece of evidence and statement of various witnesses with Justice Varma, ‘in compliance of principles of natural justice’.
The panel further video recorded every statement, to ‘ensure’ that the veracity of the report could not be challenged at a subsequent point of time and also for confirmation whether such statements were in sum and substance recorded correctly.