Advocates Assert Evidence Fully Substantiated Charges in Justice Varma Cash Probe
Senior advocates assisting the Justice Aravind Kumar Committee, which is investigating the discovery of cash at Justice Yashwant Varma's residence in March last year, stated on Tuesday that the evidence presented during proceedings was sufficient to substantiate the charges. These charges formed one of the grounds cited in the removal motion against Justice Varma.
Withdrawal Letter Termed Narrative Construction Attempt
In a formal communication to the committee, senior advocates Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare and Aishwarya Bhati, appointed under the Judges Inquiry Act to assist the panel, characterized Justice Varma's letter dated April 9 withdrawing from the proceedings as an "attempt to construct a narrative of procedural unfairness where none exists." They noted this move came at the stage when Justice Varma was required to answer charges on their merits, and that he knew tendering his resignation would terminate the proceedings.
Three Specific Charges Substantiated by Evidence
The two senior advocates detailed that the evidence substantiated three specific charges:
- Discovery and possession of unexplained Indian currency within official premises
- Failing to preserve and causing interference with material evidence
- Furnishing evasive and misleading explanations and statements
They emphasized that Justice Varma had never raised any complaint about procedural irregularities until he decided to withdraw from the proceedings, particularly when he was expected to rebut the evidence presented against him.
Committee Urged Not to Countenance Unfounded Allegations
Thakare and Bhati urged the committee not to let Justice Varma's unfounded allegations go unanswered. They argued that the committee should not treat such a move as a genuine complaint, especially given the timing and circumstances of his withdrawal.
Regarding Justice Varma's contention that he was being asked to answer an unanswerable question about the money's origin, the advocates countered that Justice Varma was best positioned to explain how wads of unaccounted cash came to be placed in a room on his official bungalow premises in New Delhi's Lutyens zone.
Witness Examination Decision Defended
The advocates also addressed Justice Varma's allegation that "witnesses were deliberately dropped in a pattern designed to suppress evidence favourable to him," describing this claim as both misconceived and contemptuous. They clarified that the decision not to examine certain witnesses was made because the existing documentary and oral evidence on record was already sufficient to prove the charges.
They further argued that if Justice Varma genuinely believed there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges, he should have continued with the inquiry proceedings to obtain a clean chit rather than withdrawing.
Undisputed Facts in the Case
Thakare and Bhati pointed out that Justice Varma did not dispute several key facts:
- Presence of cash in the storeroom of his official residence
- Removal of burnt and half-burnt wads of cash from the storeroom after first responders left the premises on the night of March 14-15 last year
- Presence of his family members and personal staff during the firefighting operation
- Control of the premises resting with him or his family members
The advocates' statements reinforce the committee's position that the evidence comprehensively supports the charges against Justice Varma, highlighting significant concerns about judicial conduct and accountability in this high-profile case.
