New Delhi: The committee constituted by then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, tasked with probing the fire incident that occurred on March 14 at Justice Yashwant Varma’s Tughlak Crescent residence, has raised serious doubts regarding Justice Varma’s conduct following the fire.
The panel’s report submitted to then CJI Justice Khanna early this month highlights what it describes as “unnatural” behaviour, particularly concerning the cleaning of the fire site and Justice Varma’s delayed and seemingly detached response, sources told IANS.
The fire reportedly caused extensive damage to a storeroom, destroying household articles and allegedly cash deposits. However, Justice Varma’s explanation of events following the fire has come under sharp criticism.
Justice Varma maintains that he was not present during the fire and only returned to Delhi on the evening of March 15, cutting short his Holi vacation due to concerns for his daughter and elderly mother, both of whom were reportedly unharmed.
Yet, despite the gravity of the situation, Justice Varma did not personally inspect the fire site upon his return. According to the report, Justice Varma claimed that after arriving, he spoke with family members and servants to take stock of the situation and then retreated to the camp office, leaving his wife and daughter to go to the market, sources said.
He stated that he refrained from visiting the site immediately because he was assured that all articles in the storeroom had been destroyed and felt it inappropriate to visit until prompted later by the Personal Private Secretary (PPS) to the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court at 9:00 PM, sources said.
“This explanation, however, has been found difficult to reconcile by the committee. The natural reaction expected from anyone returning to a property after a damaging fire would be to immediately inspect the damage personally, even if no people were hurt,” said sources referring to the report.
The report notes that Justice Varma’s decision to delay inspection and to stay away from the scene until summoned appears counterintuitive and inconsistent with genuine concern, sources said.
Further compounding suspicions is the fact that cleaning of the site reportedly took place without any specific instructions or supervision from Justice Varma, sources said, referring to the report. His claim of absence and lack of involvement in the cleanup, having only returned late the previous day, raises doubts about how the scene was managed and whether evidence may have been tampered with or removed, said sources citing the report.
Eyewitness statements and electronic evidence, including videos and photographs from the site, reportedly contradict Justice Varma’s account given in his official reply dated March 22. These suggest that currency affected by the fire was present at the site, contrary to his claim that only household articles were destroyed, sources said. The committee considers this discrepancy serious enough to conclude that Justice Varma has not presented a truthful and complete picture of the incident, sources said.
According to sources, the report’s findings that Justice Varma’s conduct defies logic and the normal course of action in such circumstances lead it to draw an adverse inference against him. The committee’s conclusion casts a shadow of doubt over his explanation, “implying potential concealment or misrepresentation of facts related to the fire and its aftermath,” sources pointed out.
Observers say it is suggested that the committee’s report faults Justice Yashwant Varma not only for his delayed inspection of the fire site but also for his apparent failure to oversee or prevent the cleaning of the scene without proper authorisation. These “unnatural” actions seriously undermine the credibility of his statements and raise troubling questions about the true circumstances surrounding the fire and what may have been lost or hidden in its wake, says an observer.
(IANS)
