By Sushil Batra
New Delhi [India], March 22 : The controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma has sparked a wave of questions and concerns, with former Attorney General of India and senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi stepping forward to demand clarity.
Speaking to ANI on Saturday, Rohatgi urged the Supreme Court to issue a proper bulletin to address the growing uncertainty and speculation surrounding the matter. According to him, the lack of transparency has left critical questions unanswered, fueling public doubt.
Rohatgi raised several pressing queries: Who reported the fire at Justice Varma's residence? When did the fire department arrive, and why did its chief initially claim that no money was found? How many rooms were inspected, and where exactly was the money discovered--inside the residence or in the servant quarters? These details, he argued, "are essential to understanding the full scope of the incident."
He further questioned the timeline of events and said that the Incident reportedly occurred on March 14th, yet the Chief Justice of India was informed only on March 20th.
"This delay, he said, raises serious concerns. Why wasn't the Chief Justice informed earlier? If he was, why did he react so late?" he asked
Rohatgi questioned why an explanation wasn't sought immediately and why the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court's report on the matter hasn't been made public.
"For him, the six-day gap between the incident and the Supreme Court's awareness of it demands a thorough investigation," he added.
Rohatgi also turned his attention to the inquiry itself, questioning whether it was initiated because of the money found.
He asked how much money was recovered, who discovered it, and in what condition it was found--was it in a bag, a suitcase, or hidden under a bed? The lack of transparency, he said, "has left the facts shrouded in secrecy, making it difficult to discern the truth."
The senior lawyer emphasized the importance of Justice Varma's own account.
He argued that the formal inquiry conducted by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court must include Varma's perspective.
"Was this a case of entrapment, or did Justice Varma acknowledge the money? If he did, was it his, and what explanation did he provide?" he stated.
Rohatgi insisted that if Justice Varma admitted to the money being his, transferring him to another position would be insufficient. Stronger measures, such as withdrawing his judicial duties, should be considered.
If the case is clear-cut, Rohatgi suggested that the Chief Justice should grant the police the necessary sanction to conduct a full investigation.
He also expressed doubts about whether the Supreme Court and High Court are equipped to handle such a serious inquiry without the involvement of forensic experts.
According to Rohatgi, this is no ordinary inquiry where the accused is simply asked for their version of events. The allegations are far more severe and demand a comprehensive and transparent investigation to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.