 |
|
The Supreme Court's recent decision to release documents and visual evidence pertaining to the inquiry into the March 14 incident involving a fire and the alleged discovery of "sacks" of partially burnt currency notes at the Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's residence marks a significant move toward transparency. However, this disclosure also brings to light a series of unanswered questions that the three-member committee, established by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to delve into the matter, is tasked with examining. The core of the issue revolves around the circumstances surrounding a fire incident at Justice Varma’s residence and the subsequent discovery of what appeared to be a significant quantity of damaged currency. The details that have emerged present a complex and potentially troubling narrative, requiring meticulous scrutiny to determine the facts and implications.
One of the primary points of contention highlighted by the published records is the delayed notification of the fire incident to the Delhi High Court Chief Justice. The records indicate that the Police Commissioner only contacted Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya around 4:50 p.m. on March 15, despite the fire having occurred the previous night at approximately 11:30 p.m. This delay raises questions about the initial response to the incident and whether appropriate protocols were followed in reporting and addressing the situation. The Police Commissioner’s report to Chief Justice Upadhyaya also mentioned that a security guard at Justice Varma’s residence reported seeing “half-burnt articles” and debris being removed on the morning following the fire. Furthermore, a separate communication in Hindi explicitly stated that four to five sacks of partially burnt currency notes were found in the damaged room. These reports, coupled with the visual evidence, strongly suggest the presence of a considerable sum of money, adding a layer of complexity to the investigation.
However, the published documents also contain redacted portions, presumably to protect confidentiality and ensure fairness. This redaction, while understandable, contributes to the ambiguity surrounding key aspects of the incident. Notably, the documents fail to identify the individuals who removed the articles from the room on the morning of March 15, nor do they reveal who captured the videos and photographs depicting the remnants of the alleged currency notes. Additionally, the documents do not indicate whether the police immediately sealed the room after the fire, a standard procedure that could have prevented unauthorized access and potential tampering with the scene. The absence of this information fuels speculation and makes it difficult to ascertain the sequence of events accurately.
Justice Varma, in his response to the inquiry, has asserted that he had no knowledge of any cash being stored in the room in question. He stated that he and his wife were in Bhopal at the time of the fire and only returned on March 15. He also emphasized that his family members were neither shown nor handed over any "sacks of burnt currency." Justice Varma has vehemently denied any involvement in the alleged removal of currency, stating that he and his staff were unaware of any such activity. His denial adds another layer of complexity to the investigation, as it directly contradicts the reports of the security guard and raises questions about the veracity of the various accounts.
Further complicating matters is the ambiguity surrounding the whereabouts of the remnants of the burnt currency notes. The Delhi Chief Justice’s published report does not mention whether the burnt currency was seized or whether an investigation is underway to determine the cause of the fire. The report also fails to mention whether CCTV footage was recovered, which could have provided valuable insights into the events leading up to and following the fire. The lack of clarity on these points raises concerns about the thoroughness of the initial investigation and the potential for crucial evidence to be overlooked.
Adding to the confusion are the conflicting accounts regarding the use and access to the storeroom where the burnt currency was allegedly found. The Police Commissioner’s report indicated that the storeroom, located adjacent to the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) guard room, was typically kept locked. However, Justice Varma countered this claim by stating that the storeroom was "utilised generally by all and sundry" to store unused household articles and CPWD materials. He emphasized that the room was disconnected from the main residence and should not be considered a room within his house. Similarly, the Registrar-cum-Secretary attached to the Delhi Chief Justice, who visited the room with Justice Varma on the night of March 15, reported that the judge's private secretary informed him that the room was not kept locked. This discrepancy highlights the lack of a clear and consistent understanding of the room's function and access, further complicating the investigation.
In his concluding remarks, Chief Justice Upadhyaya recommended a deeper probe, noting that his initial inquiry did not reveal any evidence suggesting that the room was accessible to anyone other than those residing in the bungalow, including servants, gardeners, and CPWD personnel. This observation suggests that the room was not easily accessible to outsiders, potentially narrowing the scope of the investigation to individuals with direct connections to the residence. The three-member probe committee, consisting of two High Court Chief Justices and a Karnataka High Court judge, is now tasked with conducting a more thorough investigation into the facts of the case.
In addition to the aforementioned points, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had requested details regarding the security guards and personal security officers posted at Justice Varma’s residence over the past six months. The Delhi Chief Justice forwarded this query to the police, indicating a focus on security protocols and potential vulnerabilities. The CJI also requested the call details and Internet Protocol Detail Record (IPDR) of Justice Varma, which were subsequently provided in a pen drive. Justice Varma was instructed not to dispose of his phones or alter any conversations, messages, or data stored on them. These measures suggest a comprehensive effort to gather and preserve all relevant information for the probe committee’s consideration.
The information obtained, including the documents, visual evidence, witness statements, and call records, will be presented to the probe committee to facilitate their investigation. The committee is expected to conduct a thorough and impartial inquiry to determine the facts surrounding the fire incident and the alleged discovery of burnt currency. The probe will likely involve interviewing witnesses, examining forensic evidence, and reviewing relevant documents to establish a clear timeline of events and identify any potential wrongdoing.
Ultimately, the outcome of the probe committee’s investigation will have significant implications for Justice Varma and the integrity of the judiciary. The findings could lead to further investigations, disciplinary actions, or even criminal charges, depending on the evidence uncovered. The Supreme Court's commitment to transparency in this matter is commendable, but the success of the investigation will depend on the diligence and impartiality of the probe committee. The public's trust in the judiciary is paramount, and a thorough and fair investigation is essential to maintain that trust. The complexity and sensitivity of the case necessitate a meticulous and comprehensive approach to ensure that all relevant facts are uncovered and that justice is served.
Source: More questions arise out of Delhi Chief Justice’s report on ‘sacks of cash’ at judge’s house