Cash begs burning questions: Mystery looms over fire in Delhi High Court judge's residence

The Supreme Court has made a belated attempt at transparency after a weeklong silence on the alleged discovery of sackfuls of cash during a fire at the residence of a Delhi High Court judge, but the controversy remains riddled with unanswered questions.

Forced to react after the media on March 21 reported the alleged cash discovery on the night of March 14, the apex court first acknowledged an in-house inquiry and a day later, relieved Justice Yashwant Varma of his duties pending the inquiry.

Then, in a first in Indian legal history, the apex court on Saturday night uploaded on its website a redacted version of the Delhi High Court chief justice’s preliminary inquiry report (as distinct from the apex court’s three-member in-house inquiry) alongside a defence by Justice Varma.

Inconsistencies, however, still remain, adding new queries to the existing ones. Some of the questions:

• Was the outhouse storeroom where the cash was allegedly found by firefighters unlocked? Justice Varma, who alleges a “conspiracy”, says it was unlocked and that no one would be foolish enough to hide unaccounted cash at a place open to everyone.

But the preliminary probe by Delhi Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya says, citing the police commissioner, that it was locked.

• Justice Varma has asked why no one has been able to produce the seized cash.

• Justice Varma says his family and staff called the fire brigade on becoming aware of the fire. But Justice Upadhyaya’s report mentions only a call to the police control room (PCR) and not the fire services.

So, who arrived first, and who allegedly discovered the cash? It’s a key question considering how the purported cash discovery was followed by a week of complete silence by the police and judicial authorities.

• On Saturday night, the apex court website uploaded a video showing partially burnt cash and said it had been filmed by the police.

• But not only has no FIR been registered yet, there’s no mention of any panchnama — a document that records the findings at a crime scene in the presence of at least two independent witnesses. Not having a panchnama would be unusual for such a big incident at a judge’s residence.

• A TV channel on March 21 quoted a senior fire services official as denying any cash discovery from Justice Varma’s premises. But the official later told The Telegraph he had made no such statement to the channel and that such matters are for the police and not the fire brigade.

When the news broke on March 21, with the media reporting Justice Varma had been transferred to his parent Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court broke its silence and dismissed the claim as “rumours” and “misleading”.

It said the transfer was merely under consideration by the collegium and was “independent” of an ongoing “in-house enquiry” against the judge. It mentioned no cash discovery.

But a day later, it said Justice Varma had been relieved of his duties and uploaded on its website the redacted preliminary probe report, the accused judge’s defence and the video of burnt cash.

It remains unclear why, if transparency was the objective, Justice Upadhyaya’s full probe report was not uploaded.

The report cites Justice Varma’s personal secretary as saying he had been told of the fire by one of the servants at the residence of the judge, who was out of Delhi.

“It has also been informed that the fire service was not informed separately, though once PCR was contacted the information relating to fire was automatically sent to the Delhi Fire Service,” the report says.

“The Commissioner of Police has also informed that the store room... used to bekept locked....”

However, Justice Upadhyaya adds, the Delhi High Court registrar­-cum-secretary who visited the site at his behest told him the “room was being used as a store room to keep useless articles of household and remain accessible to all and was not kept locked”.

The probe report says: “The enquiry conducted by me, prima facie, does not reveal possibility of entry or access to the room by any person other than those residing in the bungalow, the servants, the gardeners and CPWD personnels, if any. Accordingly, I am of the prima facie opinion that the entire matter warrants a deeper probe.”

Judge’s defence

Justice Varma insists the room where the fire broke out was unlocked. “(The room) was generally utilised by all and sundry to store articles such as unused furniture, bottles, crockery, mattresses, used carpets, old speakers, garden implements as well as CPWD material,” he says.

“This room is unlocked and accessible both from the official front gate as well as the backdoor of the staff quarters. It is disconnected from the main residence and is surely not a room in my house as has been portrayed.”

Varma adds: “When the fire broke out around midnight, the fire service was alerted by my daughter and my private secretary and whose calls would be duly recorded.

“During the exercise to douse the fire, all staff and the members of my household were asked to move away from the scene of the incident in view of safety concerns…. Fire was doused and when they went back to the scene of the incident, they saw no cash or currency on site.

“I state unequivocally that no cash was ever placed in that storeroom either by me or any of my family members and strongly denounce the suggestion that the alleged cash belonged to us.

“….The suggestion that one would store cash in an open, freely accessible and commonly used storeroom near the staff quarters or in an outhouse verge on the incredible and incredulous (sic).

“It is a room which iscompletely disassociatedfrom my living areas anda boundary wall demarcates my living area from that outhouse. I only wish that the media had conducted some enquiry before I came tobe indicted and defamed inthe press.”

On the video showing burnt cash, Justice Varma says: “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.”

“…We categorically assert that neither my daughter, PS nor household staff were shown these so-called sacks of burnt currency....”

Justice Varma has alleged “a conspiracy to frame and malign me”.