No-show at place, WhatsApp chats: Investigation identifies 'unnatural conduct' by Justice Varma

The Supreme Court-appointed three-member committee’s report on Justice Yashwant Varma has raised serious red flags over his conduct in the wake of a large cash discovery at his official residence in Delhi on March 14, ultimately recommending his removal from judicial office.

Key Findings of the Report

1. Failure to Report to Police or Take Legal Action
   Despite the gravity of a large amount of cash being discovered and his own allegations of a conspiracy, Justice Varma did not file a police complaint or escalate the issue to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court or the Chief Justice of India.

   • The panel called this “unnatural,” especially for someone alleging foul play.

2. Mysterious Circumstances of the Fire and Discovery
   A fire had broken out in a store room of his residence, leading to the discovery of bundles of cash by emergency personnel.

   • A midnight video shot by a PCR officer captured heaps of currency notes, with one voice stating, “Note hi note hain” (The room is filled with notes).

   • CCTV cameras monitoring the area were not functional, and Justice Varma claimed ignorance about the malfunction.

3. Unusual Behavior Post-Incident

   • Justice Varma and his wife did not visit the store room even once upon their return to Delhi, something the panel found highly implausible.

   • He explained this as a focus on family welfare, but the committee deemed it inconsistent with natural human behavior.

4. Communication Gaps and Use of Encrypted Platforms

   • Communication on the night of the fire was conducted solely via WhatsApp, which is end-to-end encrypted. No logs or transcripts could be retrieved, limiting the inquiry.

   • Staff statements highlighted unusual instructions and communication patterns during that period.

5. Acceptance of Transfer Without Resistance

   • Justice Varma was quietly transferred to the Allahabad High Court soon after the discovery.

   • He accepted the transfer within hours, even though he had until the next day to respond.

   • The report noted he made no effort to ask why he was being transferred or seek an opportunity to explain himself, behavior that contradicted the usual response of a sitting judge.

The Broader Implications

This case reflects not only judicial accountability under stress, but also a crisis of public trust in the higher judiciary. The unusual silence, absence of formal complaints, and lack of curiosity about the transfer have collectively raised suspicion about Justice Varma’s role or knowledge of the cash.

The committee’s recommendation for removal is a rare and severe step—signaling that the Supreme Court is taking the matter seriously, especially in light of growing concerns around judicial integrity.

Unless Justice Varma provides a compelling and evidence-backed explanation, this incident may set a precedent for future judicial probes, reinforcing that higher judicial office is not immune to accountability—even in the absence of a criminal charge.