New Delhi: On Saturday night, the Supreme Court, in an unprecedented move, uploaded several documents, photographs and a video related to the discovery of a large amount of cash at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, on its official website. The cash was allegedly discovered in a storeroom after a fire broke out on the premises on 14 March.
But the details that emerge from this report put out in the public domain have given rise to intriguing questions about the incident.
The documents made public with Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna’s approval include Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya’s report based on a preliminary probe conducted by him, and letters exchanged between him and the CJI.
A five-page response of Justice Varma, and two notes in Hindi are also part of the documents. Justice Varma has maintained that no cash was ever placed in the storeroom by him or his family members, and claimed he was the victim of a conspiracy.
The step to publish all of this online is seen as an attempt on the CJI’s part to maintain transparency in the judicially evolved in-house mechanism to deal with complaints against sitting judges and reaffirm public trust in the institution.
ThePrint takes a look at questions that arise from these documents:
Also Read: Judge row: V-P Dhankhar lauds CJI’s ‘transparency’, accepts Kharge’s call for RS floor leaders’ meet
Who informed the authorities about the fire in the storeroom?
Going by Chief Justice Upadhyaya’s report, Justice Varma’s personal secretary informed the Police Control Room (PCR) about the fire. The personal secretary, who uses an official mobile number registered in the name of the Delhi High Court, was told about the fire by one of the helps at Justice Varma’s residence. The report notes that the fire department was not called separately, but was alerted by the PCR.
The same information is mentioned in a note prepared by a team of fire officers who went to the spot to extinguish the blaze. This note states that the fire department learnt about the fire at Justice Varma’s residence at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, at 11.43 pm on 14 March through the PCR.
However, Justice Varma’s five-page written response, which he submitted to Justice Upadhyaya on 21 March, states that the fire service was alerted by his daughter and private secretary. As for Varma himself, his response states that both he and his wife were in Bhopal at the time.
Who reached the site first, the police or fire department? Were the local police present at the site when ‘4-5 half-burnt sacks of Indian currency’ were found?
None of the documents clarify who reached the spot first.
As per protocol, if a PCR team receives a call about an incident, the local police station of the area is immediately informed. Thereafter, a team is rushed to the spot, depending upon the gravity of the incident.
That Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora personally called up Chief Justice Upadhyaya at 4.30 pm on 15 March indicates that the police were aware of the incident.
However, since parts of Chief Justice Upadhyaya’s report have been redacted, the exact contents of the Delhi police commissioner’s communication with him are not known. Nowhere in his own report has Justice Upadhyaya explicitly mentioned the half-burnt cash.
But an official document, prepared in Hindi by the Delhi fire department, mentions the cash in the room where the fire broke out. It says that “4-5 half-burnt sacks containing Indian currency were found after the fire was brought under control”.
Photographs and a video uploaded online also show burnt cash.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya’s report does not provide any clarity on whether the police reached the spot before the fire team was there or whether it was later, after the fire was doused.
It is a key question awaiting an answer. If the police were present at the time when the cash was found, why did they not preserve the premises immediately, considering it was unaccounted money discovered within the residential premises of a sitting judge, which is a cognizable offence.
As per the current legal scheme, the police can register an FIR only after getting the CJI’s approval. Still, if they were there on the site, the police could have ensured that the alleged crime scene remains undisturbed.
One of the documents uploaded mentions that the storeroom where the fire broke out was always locked. So, was the storeroom broken into to douse the fire?
Quoting the police commissioner, Justice Upadhyaya has mentioned in his report that the storeroom, which is adjacent to the guard room where Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) were posted, “used to be kept locked”.
An independent document, in Hindi, also states that the storeroom where the fire took place is always locked. It is not clear as to who prepared this note, the fire department or the police.
A report by Justice Upadhyaya’s secretary, prepared after the officer visited the site on 15 March night, quoted Justice Varma’s private secretary on how the storeroom was used to keep household articles and that it was accessible to all as it was not kept locked.
Intriguingly, none of the documents reveal whether the storeroom was found locked by the firefighting or police team that reached the spot first, and if any lock was broken to access it.
This information is crucial as Justice Varma has in his response, both orally as well as in writing, claimed that the storeroom was used to keep “unusable household articles like some furniture and mattresses etc.” The room, according to his response, was accessible to the help, gardeners and sometimes even to the CPWD personnel.
On being shown photographs and video the police commissioner had shared with Justice Upadhyaya, Justice Varma “expressed some apprehension about some conspiracy against him”, according to the Delhi Chief Justice’s report.
After considering all the versions, Justice Upadhyaya in his report stated that in his prima facie opinion, the incident required a deeper probe.
Was half-burnt cash really found at the spot and was it in the debris that was allegedly removed from the storeroom within hours of the blaze?
As mentioned earlier, a note prepared in Hindi by the fire department records the presence of 4-5 half-burnt sacks containing Indian currency. Even the photographs and video uploaded on the SC website show partially burnt Rs 500 currency notes on the floor of a room.
However, in his response, Justice Varma has refuted the presence of any currency notes in the storeroom. Asserting that the room is open and accessible to all, he said that even CPWD officials could use the room.
He also seems to be questioning the authenticity of the video. “Assuming without admitting that the video was taken immediately at the time of the incident at the site, none of it appears to have been recovered or seized,” he told Justice Upadhyaya in response.
He also submitted that during the exercise to douse the fire, all staff and members of his household were asked to move away from the scene of the incident in view of safety concerns. After it was controlled and when they returned to the scene of the incident, they saw no cash or currency on site, he has said.
Justice Upadhyaya’s report also quoted the police commissioner to point out that the burnt debris was removed from the site on 15 March morning, hours after the incident. The top cop was told about it on 16 March.
The second note in Hindi has also recorded the removal of the debris. This was done on the basis of information received by the security guards posted at Justice Varma’s residence.
A report by Justice Upadhyaya’s secretary, who visited Justice Varma’s residence to inspect the storeroom on the night of 15 March does not mention any cash, but states that there were burnt articles on the floor.
Justice Varma has, however, rebutted the suggestion that the debris had cash and said that whatever was removed from the storeroom continues to be within his residential premises.
But visuals of burnt cash found outside the judge’s house by sanitation workers have deepened the mystery over disappearance of the purported cash.
Did the police record any entry at the Tughlak Road police station after they received a PCR call about the fire incident?
The most crucial question that arises in this case is with regard to the role of the police. As per procedure, when a team leaves the police station to address a PCR call, they have to make an entry in their records. A similar process is followed upon their return.
As mentioned earlier, that the police commissioner was the one who apprised the Delhi High Court Chief Justice about the incident confirms the police were present at the spot.
But it is unclear whether a formal entry was made in their records as the police have remained tight-lipped about the incident.
Under the law, if any unauthorised or illegal wealth is seized by police or an investigating agency, the seizure has to be recorded and deposited in the jurisdictional police station for it to be produced before a judicial magistrate at the time of trial. Whether the same was done in this case is not known.
The procedure also requires the police to prepare a panchnama (a document that records the findings and observations made at the scene of a crime) if an illegal act is found to have been committed. This is mandatory under the criminal procedure and should be done in the presence of at least two independent witnesses. Was this procedure followed?
The next question revolves around the delay in informing Justice Upadhyaya. While the fire broke out on 14 March at 11.30 pm, the police commissioner reached out to Justice Upadhyaya only on 15 March at 4.50 pm, 17 hours after the incident. It was during this time period that the debris was allegedly removed from the storeroom.
It is not known whether the police have preserved the CCTV footage of the judge’s residence. This could be an important piece of evidence, considering Justice Varma has claimed of a conspiracy behind the entire incident. There is no mention in any of the documents about this.
Why did the CJI wait till 22 March to withdraw Justice Varma’s judicial work
Both the Delhi HC Chief Justice and CJI got to know about the alleged discovery of cash from Justice Varma’s residential premises on 15 March. Two days later, Justice Upadhyaya also met Justice Varma personally to know his response. This meeting was done on CJI Khanna’s suggestion.
At that time Justice Upadhyaya was in possession of the photographs and video, but till 20 March they were not shared with CJI Khanna.
Upon receiving them from Justice Upadhyaya, CJI Khanna called a collegium meeting on the evening of 20 March to discuss transfer of justice Varma. A decision, in principle, was made, to repatriate him to Allahabad. However, no formal resolution was issued.
A day later, when news broke in the media, the Supreme Court issued a press release clarifying the transfer was not on account of the allegations against the judge.
But, going by Justice Upadhyaya’s report, it is clear that the transfer was discussed in the backdrop of these allegations. Justice Upadhyaya, too, agreed with the collegium’s proposal to move him out of Delhi, in the best interest of justice.
The question to be asked is if the collegium had taken a decision to transfer him in view of the objectionable events, then why did the CJI not withdraw Justice Varma’s judicial work on 20 March itself?
Further, Justice Upadhyaya submitted his preliminary report on 21 March evening, without getting Justice Varma’s response, which is contrary to principles of natural justice. This report called for a deeper probe, given that Justice Varma had disputed the allegations.
Justice Varma’s written response was taken only on 22 March, in which he repeated what he had previously told Justice Upadhyaya during their meeting on 17 March.
The CJI took the step to withdraw his judicial work Saturday, the day he set-up the three-member panel.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: Impeach Justice Varma & look into all his verdicts, Allahabad HC bar association demands
Why is the police or the CBI not investigating this? Why should Judge be investigated by fellow judges? This is a kangaroo court. It’s a shame that our judicial system is so crooked. We need more transparency and accountability