Judge Cash Row—Who’s Hiding the Truth?

Judge Cash Row: Who Removed Burnt Cash?

The discovery of large amounts of cash at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has sent shockwaves across the country, particularly within the judiciary. For days, conflicting reports have surfaced, each adding new layers of intrigue to the unfolding controversy.

Initial reports suggested that on March 14, during Holi, a fire broke out in the storeroom of Justice Varma’s New Delhi residence. In the process of extinguishing the flames, authorities reportedly stumbled upon heaps of cash. The revelation quickly dominated headlines, triggering intense debate.

Amid the media frenzy, Delhi Fire Service Chief Atul Garg initially stated that no cash was found at Justice Varma’s residence. However, the narrative took a dramatic turn when Delhi’s Police Commissioner, Sanjay Arora sent video footage and photographs of burnt cash recovered from the scene to Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya.

The conflicting claims raised serious questions. If the police had evidence of the cash, why did the fire service chief assert otherwise? The controversy deepened when, on March 22, the Supreme Court released footage confirming the presence of burnt cash at Justice Varma’s residence.

Following the Supreme Court’s release of the footage, Atul Garg retracted his earlier statement. He now claimed that he never categorically denied the presence of cash at the scene. The abrupt shift in his stance has only added to the growing suspicions surrounding the case. As more details emerge, inconsistencies in the reporting and official narratives suggest that the full story is yet to be uncovered. 

Was Justice Varma’s Transfer Really Unrelated to the Cash Recovery?

On March 20, the Supreme Court collegium, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, proposed transferring Justice Yashwant Varma back to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court. The very next day, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association strongly opposed the decision, declaring that their court was not a "dumping ground or a trash can."

Amid the growing controversy, the Supreme Court swiftly clarified that Justice Varma’s transfer was not linked to the cash recovery at his residence. However, a letter from Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya to the Chief Justice of India suggests otherwise.

In his letter, Chief Justice Upadhyaya explicitly stated that he had sent the photographs, video footage, and messages related to the burnt cash to the Chief Justice of India on the morning of March 20. By that evening, he was informed of the proposal to transfer Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court. He accepted the decision, citing the "interest of better administration of justice."

This sequence of events raises a critical question: if the transfer was truly unrelated to the cash recovery, why was it proposed on the same day the Supreme Court received evidence of the seized money? The letter strongly suggests a direct link between the two, contradicting the Supreme Court’s official stance.

Media’s Silence and the Gaps in Accountability

Despite these glaring contradictions, mainstream media coverage has largely focused on reporting the developments rather than questioning the authorities. The Supreme Court, Justice Varma, the Delhi Fire Service Chief, and the Delhi Police Commissioner have all made statements that do not align, yet there has been little pushback or scrutiny.

To uncover the truth, one must rely on official government records, tracing the sequence of events from March 14 onward. When these details are pieced together, a troubling pattern emerges—one that suggests the public has been misled on one of the most explosive judicial controversies in recent history.

Judge Cash Row: The Mystery of the Burnt Cash

A fire that broke out at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma on the night of March 14 has sparked serious questions, not just about the cause of the fire but about the disappearance of burnt cash that was allegedly found at the scene. Contradictions in statements from key officials, including Justice Varma himself, have only deepened the mystery.

According to official records, the fire started around 11:30 PM in the storeroom of Justice Varma’s residence at Tughlak Crescent in New Delhi. At the time, Justice Varma and his wife were in Madhya Pradesh, while their daughter and elderly mother were at home. A servant working at the house informed Varma’s Personal Secretary about the fire, who then made a PCR call at 11:43 PM. This triggered an automatic alert to the Delhi Fire Service, which arrived at the scene and extinguished the flames.

What followed, however, has led to more questions than answers. Videos and photographs taken by the authorities at the site showed piles of burning cash among the debris. The images were later shared by the Commissioner of Police with the judiciary. Yet, in his statement, Justice Varma claimed that no cash was recovered. His response was carefully worded: “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.”

If the burnt cash was indeed present at the scene, why was it not seized? Why was the site not sealed for investigation? These questions become even more pressing considering that the very next morning, on March 15, crucial evidence seemingly disappeared. Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, in an official letter, posed a direct question: “Who is the person who removed the burnt money/cash from the room in the morning of March 15?” His inquiry suggests that not only was the burnt cash documented but also that someone had access to remove it before the authorities could secure the scene.

Further adding to the intrigue, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, mentioned in his communication that a security guard stationed at Justice Varma’s residence had witnessed some half-burnt articles and debris being removed in the morning of March 15. Moreover, Justice Varma in his statement has mentioned that his staff had only cleared debris and salvageable materials but had not removed any burnt cash or currency.

Despite clear photographic and video evidence, the Delhi Police failed to seize the cash or register an FIR. This apparent lapse in protocol allowed someone to remove what could have been a key piece of evidence. In the days that followed, sanitation workers from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) reportedly found burnt fragments of ₹500 notes while cleaning near Justice Varma’s bungalow. This discovery raises the question—if no cash was recovered from the house, as Justice Varma claims, how did remnants of burnt currency end up in the vicinity of his residence days later?

The contradictions in official statements and the failure of the police to follow basic investigative procedures have fueled speculation about a potential cover-up. If burnt cash was indeed present at the scene, who removed it? Why did the Delhi Police not secure the evidence? How did cash that was captured on video on the night of March 14 vanish without a trace by the next morning? These unresolved questions continue to cast a shadow over what has now become one of the most puzzling incidents in recent times.

Judge Cash Row: Conspiracy or Cover-Up?

When the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court showed Justice Varma photographs and videos of burnt cash allegedly found at the scene, Varma reportedly claimed that it was part of a conspiracy against him. His statement raises a critical question—was the cash planted?

However, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, in his official report, has dismissed this possibility. He explicitly stated that the inquiry conducted so far does not indicate any outsider gaining access to the storeroom where the fire broke out. According to the report, only residents of the bungalow, along with servants, gardeners, and CPWD personnel, had access to the premises. If no outsider could have entered to plant evidence, Justice Varma’s conspiracy claim appears weak.

Adding to the contradictions, Justice Varma has stated that the storeroom was never locked and was used by “all and sundry.” However, the Delhi Police Commissioner informed the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court that the storeroom was adjacent to the guard room where CRPF personnel were posted and that it was usually “kept locked.” This raises another crucial question—if the room was typically locked, who had access to store or remove the cash?

Beyond these discrepancies, several other glaring issues remain unanswered. The Delhi Fire Service Chief claimed no cash was found, contradicting photographic and video evidence shared within the judiciary. The Supreme Court has maintained that Justice Varma’s transfer was not linked to the cash seizure, yet the circumstances surrounding the fire suggest otherwise. The Delhi Police’s failure to seal the scene, seize the cash, or file an FIR only fuels suspicions of an attempt to suppress evidence. Moreover, despite the incident occurring on March 14, it was only made public a week later, on March 21.

Recognising the seriousness of the allegations, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member committee to investigate the matter. However, doubts linger about the effectiveness of such an inquiry. With three judges investigating one of their own, how much accountability can truly be expected? The committee lacks the authority to compel testimony or enforce legal action. Ultimately, it is an internal probe, unlikely to lead to any substantial repercussions.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court collegium has recommended that Justice Varma be repatriated to the Allahabad High Court. At the same time, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association has escalated demands for his impeachment and the lawyers at the Allahabad High Court launched a strike, shutting down court proceedings in protest against Justice Varma’s proposed return. Additionally, on March 26, the Supreme Court refused an urgent hearing for advocate Mathews Nedumpara’s March 24 plea under Article 32, which sought an FIR against Varma over the cash allegations

However, the larger, more unsettling question remains—if this fire had not occurred, would anyone have ever discovered the cash? How many other Lutyens’ Delhi bungalows house undisclosed stashes of money? How many secretive, high-level deals remain hidden, only coming to light through accidents like this?

Justice Varma is yelling ‘conspiracy,’ but if the cash was planted, who did it when only his own people had access? The fire department and police appear to be evading key questions, while the judiciary’s internal investigation lacks real teeth. The facts remain stark—the cash has vanished, the crime scene was compromised, no FIR has been filed, and authorities remained silent for a week before the story surfaced. In a system meant to uphold justice, this entire episode reeks of negligence, complicity, or worse. If such a blatant case involving a sitting judge is met with silence, what does it say about accountability in our institutions? At what point do we stop shrugging and start demanding real answers?

To watch The Spotlight episode on the Justice Varma Cash Row, CLICK HERE.