supreme court publishes video & pictures on cash at justice varma's house

Title: A Bold Step Toward Judicial Transparency: Supreme Court Makes Inquiry Report on Justice Yashwant Varma Public

In a move that has caught national attention, the Supreme Court of India on Saturday released to the public the inquiry report and related materials concerning the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. The release includes photos and a video shared by the Delhi Police, which reportedly show partially burnt currency notes following a fire incident on March 14.

The Incident and Initial Findings

According to the report submitted by Delhi High Court Chief Justice Manmohan Upadhyay, the fire broke out in a storeroom on March 14, a space purportedly inaccessible to outsiders. Chief Justice Upadhyay visited the premises on March 15 along with the Registrar of the High Court and met with Justice Varma in person.

Justice Varma, who was not present at his residence during the incident, stated that the storeroom was sometimes accessed by domestic staff, gardeners, and CPWD workers. When confronted with WhatsApp images of the burnt cash, he expressed apprehension of a possible conspiracy against him.

Following this, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, upon receiving the report, directed Justice Upadhyay to obtain a formal response from Justice Varma regarding:

The source and ownership of the unaccounted money;

Who removed the burnt cash from the premises;

And directed Justice Varma not to delete any data from his mobile phone.

Justice Varma's Response: Strong Denial of Allegations

The Supreme Court also published Justice Varma’s detailed response, in which he categorically denied all allegations. He clarified that the room where the fire occurred was not part of his official residence but a disconnected storeroom, separated from the main bungalow by a boundary wall.

> “I state unequivocally that no cash was ever placed in that storeroom either by me or any of my family members and strongly denounce the suggestion that the alleged cash belonged to us,” Justice Varma wrote.

“The very idea or suggestion that this cash was kept or stored by us is totally preposterous... The suggestion that one would store cash in an open, freely accessible and commonly used storeroom near the staff quarters or in an outhouse verges on the incredible and incredulous,” he added, criticizing media outlets for speculative and defamatory reporting.

In-House Committee Formed

After reviewing both the Chief Justice’s report and Justice Varma’s response, CJI Sanjiv Khanna has constituted a three-member committee to conduct an in-house inquiry. The members of the committee are:

Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court

Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court

Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the Karnataka High Court

Additionally, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been directed not to assign any judicial work to Justice Yashwant Varma during the pendency of the inquiry.

A Moment of Reckoning

This development marks a rare and significant step toward transparency and accountability within the judiciary. The decision to disclose sensitive materials and initiate an independent inquiry sends a strong message that no one is above scrutiny—not even members of the higher judiciary.

However, the incident also opens up larger discussions on the security protocols of judicial residences, the role of media in reporting ongoing investigations, and the need for careful balancing of public interest with individual dignity and due process.

Conclusion

While the final outcome of the in-house inquiry remains to be seen, the proactive stance taken by the Supreme Court—both in initiating an investigation and making the proceedings public—sets a benchmark in judicial integrity. The coming days will be crucial in determining whether this was indeed a planted conspiracy, as claimed by Justice Varma, or a deeper issue involving misuse of judicial premises.