The controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma has taken a dramatic turn, with sharp contradictions emerging between official footage and the judge’s emphatic denials. The Supreme Court’s release of videos and photos, purportedly showing charred cash recovered from his residence, has ignited intense public and legal scrutiny. Justice Varma has categorically rejected the notion that any such cash was seized or even present, calling the very idea “totally preposterous” and questioning the credibility of the accusations.
Responding to a series of queries from Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, relayed through the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice Varma acknowledged the existence of the video but firmly argued that no money was removed from his residence. He insisted that if such a video was indeed recorded at the scene, none of the supposed burnt cash was ever shown to his family or staff — who were present when authorities cleared the site after the fire. He further clarified that the only items removed were debris and what officials deemed salvageable, reinforcing his assertion that no sacks of charred notes were displayed or taken away in their presence.
Justice Varma’s daughter and household staff supported his version of events, stating that no currency — burnt or otherwise — was presented to them during or after the incident on March 14. The judge, who was away from his home that night, expressed bewilderment over the allegations, emphasizing that his family would never store cash in an open, easily accessible storeroom near the staff quarters. He described the notion as “incredible and incredulous,” pointing out the implausibility of keeping large sums of money in such an exposed location.
The Delhi Police Commissioner, however, shared the video with the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, depicting what appears to be a bag filled with charred currency retrieved from the premises. This visual evidence starkly contrasts Justice Varma’s repeated denials, setting the stage for a high-stakes inquiry into the truth behind the conflicting accounts.
The situation now hinges on the authenticity, timing, and context of the video evidence, which could determine whether this incident is a case of misunderstanding, deliberate misinformation, or something more serious. Justice Varma’s strong rebuttal, coupled with the visual proof presented by law enforcement, ensures that the matter won’t settle easily. It’s likely to evolve into an extensive investigation, with potential legal and ethical ramifications rippling through the judiciary. The clash between a sitting High Court judge’s unwavering defense and the striking imagery of burnt cash raises profound questions about accountability, transparency, and the integrity of the judicial system itself.
