Sacks of Burnt Cash at Judge's House Send Shockwaves

Indian judiciary has eggs on its face and finds itself in the dock once again. An incidental finding of a pile of burnt cash packed in sacks on the day people were celebrating Holi in a storeroom on the bungalow of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma on Tughlaq Road has caused embarrassment to it no end. It has angered people across the country and given them a handle to beat the judiciary with.

Giving credence to the charges, an NDMC sanitation worker told the media he found charred currency notes of Rs 500 denominations in the debris outside the Judge’s house, a day after the fire incident. He said that it was not the first time that the burnt currencies were found outside his house. He found such notes four-five days back as well. Another sanitation worker corroborated his claim.

After the media reports, Justice Varma defended himself saying that he apprehended some conspiracy against him. He made the charge in response to the queries raised by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya in the course of his inquiry into the allegations.

As to the allegation of the burnt cash found in the storeroom, he said: ``The room is unlocked and accessible from both the official front gate as well as from the backdoor of the staff quarters. ``…it is disconnected from the main residence, and surely not a room in my house…and a boundary wall demarcates my living areas from that outhouse.’’

However, Delhi High Court Chief Justice in his report to CJI Sanjiv Khanna said that ``The entire enquiry conducted by me, prima facie, does not reveal possibility of entry or access to other than those residing in the bungalow, the servants, the gardeners and {CWPD} personnel, if any. Accordingly, I am of the prima facie opinion that the entire matter warrants a deeper probe.’’

The Delhi police Commissioner had handed over a video to the Chief Justice of India and Justice Upadhyaya showing burnt cash. Justice Upadhyaya in his report to CJI Khanna said that when the video was shown to Justice Varma he said —``something not found on the site was seen in the video.’’

Justice Varma is the second senior-most judge and a member of the High Court Collegium. He is the son of former Justice A.N. Varma, a former Judge of the Allahabad High Court.

Allahabad High Court Bar Association put the figure of the burnt cash at Rs. 15 crores in a protest letter against the transfer Varma to the Allahabad High Court.  In the protest letter, the Bar said that the Allahabad High court is not a trash bin.

Politicians, who has borne the brunt of judicial activism for decades, and lawyers, who are part and parcel of the country’s judicial system, are leading the attack on it. Retired judges have come out in strength to weed out the corrupt from the system and report the faith of people in it.

The judge was allegedly stashing so much of cash at his residence taking advantage of immunity from investigating officers entering into their premises without CJI permission. But the fire spilled the beans. The judge was not in town when the fire broke out

His family members called fire office and the police. They came and controlled it. During a post incident reconnaissance to ensure that no embers are not left in the storeroom, they were aghast at finding a huge pile of burnt cash. The police reported the matter to their seniors who in turn apprised the higher officials of it. They informed the government about it. The government officials detailed about it to the Chief Justice of Supreme Court Sanjiv Khanna.

The CJI immediately convened the Collegium. The Collegium unanimously decided to transfer Justice Varma to his parent court, Allahabad High Court, from where he was transferred to Delhi High Court in 2021.

While putting their stamp on the unanimous transfer decision, some members of the five-member Collegium expressed misgivings:  that transferring would not suffice in a case of such serious charges, and that it would not only tarnish the image of the judiciary but also see erosion of people’s faith in it. They suggested seeking resignation from Varma, and if he refused, CJI should order an in-house inquiry to start the process for his removal through impeachment proceedings by Parliament.

On the next day of the incident, the Apex Court issued a vague press release, mentioning neither the recovery of the cash nor the name of the judge saying that ``On receiving the information, Delhi HC commenced in-house enquiry procedure directing collecting information…and will be submitting a report to CJI Sanjeev Khanna on Friday.’’

As per the in-house procedure put in place by SC in 1999 to deal with allegations of corruption, wrong doing or impropriety against Constitutional court judges, CJI on receipt of a complaint seeks response of the response of the judge concerned. And if he is not satisfied with his or her response, he can set a set up an in-house inquiry panel.

Justice Khanna set up a three-member-panel consisting of Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court judge Anu Sivaraman for a deep inquiry into the alleged recovery of the cash, a day after he received an adverse report from the Delhi High Court Chief Justice. No time limit has been fixed for the inquiry.

After the recovery of the cash, a fusillade of attacks began on the judiciary with politicians, lawyers, and retired judges focussing on the loss of face of it over the years. Former Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana said that ``the judiciary is losing the trust of people. Sharing the concerns of people over the court culture, he said that ``an average citizen is apprehensive of approaching courts fearing the unknow.’’

Senior advocate Harish Salve targeted the Collegium system for such appointment of judges and sought more transparency in it. He said that the incident had put the judiciary on trial and in-house inquiry was not enough. If the cash had been found at someone else’s house, the Enforcement Directorate would have been immediately there, he further said.

Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh raised the issue in the Rajya Sabha for making judicial accountability stronger. The three-judges has started probe into the charges. The panel has asked Justice Varma not to dispose of his phones, delete or modify his conversations and message data form them. But the documents and visual material related to the inquiry published by the Supreme Court reveal many gaps which the three-member panel may go into.

The redacted published documents show that the Police Commissioner shared the information about finding of the burnt cash with Delhi High Chief Justice Upadhyay on March 15 evening, a day after the fire at 11.30 p.m. The Commissioner further reported to Justice Upadhyay security personnel deployed at Varma’s residence saw `half-burnt articles and debris being removed next morning of the fire. A separate communication in Hindi said that four or five sacks of partially-burnt currency notes were found in the room where the fire broke out.

Further, the published documents do not mention the person or persons who removed the burnt cash from the room. They do not identify who had shot the videos and the photographs that showed the remains of the burnt cash. They are silent on whether the police had sealed the room immediately after the incident or not. Neither the spot of the burnt cash remains nor its seizure is mentioned in Justice Upadhyaya’s published report. Also, there is no mention in it about investigation into the causes of the fire or preservation of the CCTV footage.

 Justice Varma has also been in controversy earlier as well. He was named in a CBI FIR and ED’s complaint in a case of allegedly defrauding banks of crores of rupees by Simbhauli Sugars Limited. He was a non-executive director on the board of the company before being elevated to the Allahabad High Court.

The FIR was filed on a complaint by the Oriental Bank of Commerce which had given a loan of Rs 150 crores to the company. The bank alleged that it had given the loan on an undertaking by the company that it was meant for farmers but the company later defrauded the loan amount.

The Supreme Court had in March last year quashed an Allahabad High court order ordering an FIR to probe the grant of loan by SBI-led consortium of banks to the company. It is not the first that the judiciary has suffered sully to its image. In 2003, CBI had arrested Delhi High Court judge Shamit Mukherjee in a Prevention of Corruption Act following his resignation. He was alleged to have been involved in the Delhi Development Authority land deal scam.

I am not entering into the debate as to which appointment system is better—Executive or Collegium. But question arises: How do people of dubious credentials get through and elevated to be judges of Constitutional courts? The judiciary has to answer to restore the waning trust of people in it.