New Delhi: The burden of proof was being shifted on him rather than the other way round in the probe, Justice Yashwant Varma has alleged, listing the procedural infirmities in the working of the committee probing the cash-at-home row.
In a 13-page letter to the Justice Aravind Kumar-led three-member committee, he also complained of non-supply of CCTV footage of his outhouse and dropping of main witnesses.
‘Conscious of the gravity of my decision and hope that history will one day record the unfairness with which a sitting high court judge was treated,’ he wrote, informing the panel of his decision to withdraw from the proceedings of the Judges Inquiry Committee (JIC).
The letter was handed to the panel Friday morning.
The panel was to commence Friday its four-day hearing of the defence side and was likely to conclude it before the Monsoon session. Hours later, Justice Varma sent his resignation to the President and the Chief Justice of India, effectively ending the impeachment process in Parliament.
Meanwhile, Justice Varma’s letter details every single development in the episode, right from the intervening night of 14-15 March, 2025, at his government residence in New Delhi.
Emergency officials recorded videos showing the “discovery of what appeared to be cash/currency at the said storeroom”, he wrote. At that time, the judge said, he was on a pre-planned vacation in a remote forest area with “extremely limited mobile connectivity”. He maintained that he was unaware of the fire or the alleged cash until hours after the fire was controlled.
One of the central points of Justice Varma’s defence is the physical nature of the storeroom where the cash was purportedly found. He describes the storeroom as a “detached structure adjacent to the staff quarters” that was “physically separated by boundary walls from the family living quarters”.
The room, he said, was “accessible from the back gate of the premises, which was not manned by any security”, and was used by domestic staff and maintenance personnel for storing “ordinary items such as unused furniture, bottles, crockery, mattresses, used carpets, old speakers, garden implements and CPWD material”.
Justice Varma emphasises that he had only visited the room “four or five times in the entire two years” of his stay and that even when locked, the key was never in his possession or under his instructions.
Also Read: Clean-up job by Justice Yashwant Varma’s aides: What panel probing judge cash row found
‘Evidence suppression’
Raising serious concerns regarding the handling of evidence and witnesses during the inquiry, Justice Varma notes a “deeply troubling pattern” where 22 out of 31 witnesses originally cited were dropped after cross-examination.
This, he believes, exposed the “weaknesses or contradictions” in the case against him.
The judge claims that the senior fire and police officials had “independently decided not to report or seize the alleged cash” well before he was even informed of the blaze, a fact that would “exclude any hint of wrongdoing” at his end.
Furthermore, he claims that “best evidence that could shed light on the entire incident”, such as CCTV footage, was kept away, with his requests for a copy being “consistently declined”.
Justice Varma addresses the three specific charges against him, one by one, arguing they lack a foundational basis.
Regarding Charge I, he asserts there is “no evidence whatsoever that the premises were secured” and that calling upon him to explain cash that has “never” been linked to him would be “wholly unjustified”.
He says that the charge framed rested entirely upon “impermissible presumptions” and should have never been put up to him.
In relation to this, he is of the opinion that “no proof was ever produced that what was discovered by the Delhi Fire Services Officers in the storeroom at the premises was genuine Indian currency”.
The letter also notes that during the course of the proceedings, the personal security officers expected to speak to the overall security arrangements and CCTV coverage were “dropped without explanation” after he “highlighted their false claims and sought their location data”.
‘No footage produced’
He also claimed that there was no evidence to show that the premises in question were secured and that the storeroom could be accessed from the back gate without being noticed by the CRPF officers on duty.
On Charge II, which alleges interference with evidence, he states that “no witness has attributed any instruction, interference, tampering or acquiescence” to him or to any person acting at his behest.
After the fire was extinguished and before lawful inspection could take place, he claims, “material objects and surroundings at the scene were altered or removed and that he failed to ensure “preservation of evidence and acquiesced in its disturbance”.
Finally, concerning Charge III, he denies giving an “evasive explanation” of the circumstances—clarifying that he only stated the cash “did not belong to him or his family members” and that the charge proceeds on a “misreading” of his letter dated 22 March to the Delhi High Court Chief Justice.
In his concluding remarks, Justice Varma expresses disappointment that the proceedings resulted in a “reversal of the burden of proof” and an “onerous obligation of proving multiple negatives”.
He argues that a “fair inquiry” would have recognised the “complete absence of a prima facie case”, rather than him having to prove “multiple negatives and disprove unsubstantiated presumptions”.
“This course has left me with no choice but to withdraw,” he writes.
By continuing to participate, the beleaguered judge says, he would be doing himself and the institution a “greatest disservice” by legitimising a process that asks him to “answer the unanswerable–where did the money come from”.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: Why SC refused to entertain PIL seeking FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma in cash row