Justice Yashwant Varma Under Scrutiny as Judicial Probe Flags Burnt Currency, Contradictions in Fire Incident
New Delhi | May 31, 2025 – In a significant development shaking the higher judiciary, a three-judge committee constituted by then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, has submitted a sharply worded report on the March 14 fire incident at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlak Crescent in New Delhi. The panel’s findings, which have not been officially released but were accessed by IANS through top sources, raise troubling questions about Justice Varma’s version of events, the mysterious presence of burnt currency, and a series of omissions that could amount to a breach of judicial integrity.
A Fire, Burnt Currency, and Unanswered Questions
The committee report has taken strong exception to the discovery of burnt currency notes recovered from a storeroom inside the premises—an element that Justice Varma has not been able to convincingly explain. According to sources, the panel viewed this not just as a procedural lapse but a serious concern about the possible concealment of unaccounted assets.
Justice Varma’s assertion that the fire was caused by a short circuit has also come under scrutiny, especially in light of his belated mention of “arson” only after Delhi High Court Chief Justice used the term to permit further investigation by the PPS (Personal Protection Service).
Unsubstantiated Conspiracy Theories
In his written response to the panel, Justice Varma reportedly suggested that he was being targeted by an orchestrated conspiracy and that videos circulated after the fire were part of a smear campaign. However, sources close to the investigation indicate that he failed to identify any individual or motive behind such a theory. The report describes his claims as vague, unsubstantiated, and lacking in credibility.
Contradictions in Timeline and Visitor Log
Another major red flag raised by the committee is the omission of critical information. Justice Varma did not initially disclose that his cousin sister and her husband—arrived from Dubai on Holi evening—were present at his residence during the incident. This omission, according to the report, calls into question the reliability of his statements and the transparency of his defense.
Sources close to the committee suggest that the integrity of the narrative was compromised by this key exclusion, which could potentially mask the role or knowledge of guests present during the suspicious incident.
Security Argument Rejected
Justice Varma attempted to suggest that the premises were vulnerable and that someone could have planted the currency. However, the committee dismissed this claim outright. With a full security detail comprising a PSO (Personal Security Officer), static security team, and known domestic staff, the committee concluded that it was virtually impossible for any outsider to access the storeroom without internal involvement or knowledge.
"The robust security protocols in place contradict the claim of unauthorized intrusion," the report states, according to sources.
Why Was Burnt Currency Removed? Staff Suspected
Perhaps the most damning revelation in the report is the suspicion that Justice Varma’s private secretary and trusted household staff may have removed burnt currency from the premises in the early hours of March 15—after fire services and police had departed. No credible explanation or disclosure about these actions has been provided by Justice Varma or his aides, which the panel considers a serious breach of public trust.
Sudden Transfer Raises Eyebrows
In a move that further intensified scrutiny, Justice Varma accepted a transfer order on March 20—just days after the incident—without protest or apparent consultation with his family. The committee found this swift acquiescence unusual for a senior judge with nearly a decade of service at the Delhi High Court. Sources indicate that the panel interpreted this behavior as possible tacit admission or, at the very least, a strategic withdrawal under pressure.
Committee's Conclusion: Breach of Public Trust
The report concludes that Justice Varma’s actions, omissions, and implausible explanations reflect a breach of constitutional ethics and a failure to uphold the integrity expected of someone in his position.
“The presence of unaccounted burnt currency, the absence of a proactive investigation into the incident, and the lack of transparency collectively erode public confidence in the judiciary,” the panel is quoted as saying.
The findings of the committee, although not yet public, could trigger a wider discussion within the judiciary and legal community about transparency, accountability, and reforms in handling internal disciplinary matters.
What Happens Next?
The ball now lies in the court of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India, who may recommend further disciplinary or legal action. With the judiciary under public glare and the issue of judicial accountability already a topic of intense debate, this case may become a touchstone for how the system deals with allegations at the highest levels.