Kapil Sibal in his article published in Indian Express, raised question, ‘why was the currency not seized?’ and argues that the inquiry of the in-house committee is deeply flawed.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kapil Sibal argues that the in-house Committee inquiry into the burnt cash case incident at Justice Yashwant Varma’s home was deeply flawed. He believes it raised more questions than it answered.
Questions that remained unanswered, What was the quantum of currency that was found? Why was the currency not seized? Why was a panchnama not prepared by the Delhi Police present at the spot? Why was the outhouse not cordoned off to ensure that the scene of the incident was protected or secured? Why was the currency not preserved for inquiry and investigation? Why was an FIR not registered against unknown persons?
In an article authored by Kapil Sibal, in the ‘Indian Express’, raised questions to the in-house committee, claiming that the report is flawed which was the basis of impeachment motion.
Senior lawyer and member of Rajya Sabha, Kapil Sibal in his article raised serious questions, which he believes needed to be answered,
“What was the quantum of currency that was found? Why was the currency not seized? Why was a panchnama not prepared by the Delhi Police present at the spot? Why was the outhouse not cordoned off to ensure that the scene of the incident was protected or secured? Why was the currency not preserved for inquiry and investigation? Why was an FIR not registered against unknown persons?”
Further, regarding the mainstream media, that quotes the amount of currency ranging 15 crore in large bundles, he mentioned,
“The currency in the alleged quantum could not have entered the premises without the knowledge of the CRPF personnel stationed at his residence.”
He also emphasized on the serious issue, regarding the CCTV camera which was placed in the security room at the entrance. When the CCTV camera was seized, Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) revealed that the hard disk was blank.
This was the major security lapse, as it is the responsibility of the State Government to protect the Judge. This again raise vital questions,
“When did the CCTV camera stop working? Did the security personnel make any complaint in that regard?”
In this regard also, there was no answer. The Committee never investigated that, why the footage could not be retrieved. Instead, the Committee blamed the Justice, as if he knew and have the control of the functioning of the CCTV.
The Committee proceeds on the assumption and concludes that the keys of the outhouse were under the tacit or active control of the family and did not clarify what this ‘tacit and active control’ means.
The Committee paced the burden to provide evidence on the Judge, while the burden of proof shifts only when the person is found in illegal possession of substance which is prohibited by law.
Kapil Sibal said,
“The inquiry was conducted behind the judge’s back, without affording right to cross-examination and opportunity of hearing, even when it was demanded.”
The Committee further concludes that the judge’s behavior was unnatural. Specifically, his failure to visit the outhouse upon returning from Madhya Pradesh on the evening of March 15 was unnatural. His lack of objection to his transfer to the Allahabad High Court suggests a sense of guilt.
What is particularly puzzling is why the family was not informed that currency had been found in the outhouse, either by the fire department or the Delhi police. In fact, the judge only became aware of this on March 17, when the video footage was shown to him.
There is no direct or circumstantial evidence of the removal of the remnant of the burnt currency from the premises of the judge resident. Kapil Sibal mentioned that,
“The basis for the impeachment motion was a flawed report without a thorough investigation.”
Burnt Cash Case: Justice Yashwant Varma
On 14th march, at the Delhi official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, 15 crores cash found which cost him to face the impeachment process in Parliament. The Central Government is seeking to remove the judge through the constitutional process i.e. Impeachment.
On 22 March 2025, the Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three member committee to investigate the allegation against Justice Varma.
Justice Varma has denied any connection to the cash found, stating that neither he nor his family placed any money in the storeroom and suggesting that the allegations are part of a conspiracy to malign him.
Sanitation workers reported finding burnt pieces of Rs.500 notes near Justice Varma’s residence, adding complexity to the investigation.
The Supreme Court transferred Justice Varma from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court. Also, the Chief Justice Allahabad High Court has been asked to not assign any work to Justice Varma “for the time being“.
Legal Procedure of Impeachment
Although the term impeachment has not been used explicitly, but is used to describe the process for removal of judges from the office. This process provides an essential tool to ensure judicial accountability along with preseving independence of judiciary.
Article 124(4) and 218 outlines the removal process for Supreme Court and High Court judges. the grounds for removal is limited to “proved misbehaviour and incapacity“.
Steps for impeachment process :
- Initiation of motion;
- Formation of an Inquiry Committee;
- Committee report and Parliamentary Debate;
- Final Approval by the President.
ALSO READ: Impeachment Process: A Critical Look At Justice Shekhar Yadav And Justice Yashwant Varma
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Impeachment
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
