Did Justice Varma Evade the Fire Scene? Committee Raises Concerns

New Delhi, May 31 (NationPress) A committee formed by the former Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, to investigate the fire incident that transpired on March 14 at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence on Tughlak Crescent, has expressed significant concerns about Justice Varma’s actions post-fire.

The committee’s report, presented to Justice Khanna earlier this month, emphasizes what it terms as “unnatural” behavior, particularly regarding the cleanup efforts at the fire site and Justice Varma’s slow and seemingly indifferent reaction, as reported by IANS.

The fire reportedly resulted in substantial destruction to a storeroom, obliterating household items and allegedly cash reserves. Nevertheless, Justice Varma’s account of events following the incident has faced harsh scrutiny.

Justice Varma asserts that he was absent during the fire and returned to Delhi on the evening of March 15, cutting short his Holi celebrations due to worries for his daughter and elderly mother, both of whom were reportedly unharmed.

However, despite the serious nature of the incident, Justice Varma did not personally investigate the fire site upon his return. As indicated in the report, Justice Varma claimed that after arriving, he consulted with family members and staff to assess the situation before retreating to his camp office, allowing his wife and daughter to go shopping, according to sources.

He mentioned that he delayed visiting the site initially because he had been informed that all items in the storeroom had been destroyed and felt it inappropriate to visit until later prompted by the Personal Private Secretary (PPS) to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court at 9:00 PM, sources indicated.

However, this explanation has proven challenging for the committee to reconcile. The expected instinct of anyone returning to a property after such a damaging fire would typically be to promptly assess the damage personally, even in the absence of injuries, sources stated.

The report underscores that Justice Varma’s choice to postpone inspection and maintain distance from the scene until summoned seems illogical and not in line with genuine concern, sources explained.

Additionally, suspicions are further heightened by the fact that the site was reportedly cleaned without specific orders or supervision from Justice Varma, raising questions about the management of the scene and whether evidence may have been compromised or removed, sources cited.

Witness accounts and electronic evidence, including videos and photographs from the scene, reportedly contradict Justice Varma’s official response dated March 22. These suggest that currency affected by the fire was on-site, contrary to his assertion that only household items were lost, according to sources. The committee deems this discrepancy significant enough to conclude that Justice Varma has not provided a truthful and complete account of the incident.

As per sources, the report’s findings indicate that Justice Varma’s actions defy logic and the normal responses expected in such scenarios, leading to adverse inferences against him. The committee’s conclusions cast doubt on his explanations, hinting at potential concealment or misrepresentation of facts regarding the fire and its aftermath, sources noted.

Observers suggest that the committee’s findings criticize Justice Yashwant Varma not only for his delayed inspection of the fire site but also for his evident failure to manage or prevent the cleaning of the scene without proper authorization. These “unnatural” actions severely undermine the reliability of his statements and raise troubling questions about the true circumstances surrounding the fire and what may have been lost or concealed in its aftermath.