New Delhi: The report submitted by the three-judge inquiry panel probing the incident at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence on March 14 contains significant observations regarding the alleged recovery of cash during the fire, say sources.
While the report has been submitted to the then-Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, sources have raised important questions over some points pertaining to the conclusions reached.
The panel, constituted by then CJI Khanna on March 22, reportedly acknowledged the presence of cash at the premises of Justice Verma’s residence in New Delhi.
Its conclusions appear to rest on the principle of “implied responsibility,” wherein the discovery of cash on a judge’s official premises is construed as indicative of at least tacit knowledge or approval, say sources. However, this line of reasoning has prompted a degree of concern among legal analysts.
According to sources familiar with the matter, Justice Varma did not dispute the discovery of the cash itself. Instead, he called for a more comprehensive inquiry to establish how the cash came to be stored in the outhouse, who placed it there, and what, if any, connection exists between the recovered material and the judge or his family, sources added.
These questions, sources note, need to be examined. It is pointed out by the sources that the onus of establishing facts in any inquiry, particularly one of this gravity, rests with the investigators.
As per sources, no conclusive evidence was presented to establish ownership or knowledge on the part of Justice Varma or his family regarding the recovered cash.
Testimonies before the committee reportedly confirmed that the outhouse in question was only sporadically used and that keys were kept in accessible locations for domestic staff, sources said.
According to sources, the panel is understood to have acknowledged that the structure was “occasionally locked” and at other times “habitually unlocked.”
“The broader concern raised by some in the legal fraternity is that a presumption of knowledge or involvement, solely based on location, may not align with the long-established principles of natural justice and the presumption of innocence,” sources said.
According to an expert, the application of “implied responsibility” in such a scenario, without concrete proof of nexus or ownership, may inadvertently risk setting a precedent that could be at odds with principles of fair inquiry.
(IANS)
