A parliamentary inquiry committee has held all three charges against former Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma proved, concluding that he failed to satisfactorily explain the discovery of large amounts of ₹500 notes at his official residence in Delhi and did not preserve material evidence after the incident.
The report, tabled in both Houses of Parliament during the Monsoon Session, marks the culmination of a controversy that began with a fire at Varma’s government‑allotted residence at 30 Tughlaq Crescent in March 2025. Following the blaze, partially burnt cash was found in a storeroom, triggering allegations of corruption. Varma denied ownership of the money, suggesting instead that it may have been planted to implicate him.
Supreme Court of India initially ordered an in‑house inquiry led by the then Delhi High Court Chief Justice. Varma was relieved of judicial duties while the probe continued. In August 2025, the apex court upheld the legality of the in‑house process and dismissed Varma’s challenge.
With MPs across parties pressing for his removal, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted a three‑member Judges Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The panel was chaired by Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, with Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and senior advocate B.V. Acharya as members. The committee examined documentary and electronic records, witness testimony, and Varma’s written responses.
Also read: CJP’s Dipke rebukes Ramdev, asks him to focus on Patanjali products, alleges pressure to join BJP
The first charge concerned the unexplained presence of currency notes in the storeroom. The committee found that substantial amounts of ₹500 notes were recovered and that Varma failed to provide a credible explanation regarding their source or ownership.
The second charge related to the handling of the storeroom and evidence after the fire. The panel noted that the site was disturbed before it could be sealed and inspected, leading to the disappearance of the cash. While the committee did not establish that Varma personally removed the money, it concluded that he failed to ensure preservation of evidence and acquiesced in the disturbance of the premises.
Also read: 29 years ago, Dharmendra Pradhan protested against a paper leak in Odisha, got beaten up by police
The third charge focused on Varma’s explanations. His March 22, 2025 reply and subsequent statements were described as evasive and lacking transparency. The committee said his defence did not demonstrate the candour or institutional responsibility expected of a judge. Claims that the cash was planted or part of a conspiracy were unsupported by evidence, and no FIR or formal complaint was filed to substantiate those allegations.
Varma resigned from the Allahabad High Court in April 2026, after impeachment proceedings had already begun. His resignation made removal from office unnecessary, but the inquiry continued. Legal experts have debated whether the Judges (Inquiry) Act applies to retired judges, yet Parliament proceeded to record the findings.
Also read: Is a Lusting for Fish a Quintessential Bengali Characteristic?
The report’s significance lies in its formal conclusion: all three charges — unexplained cash, failure to preserve evidence, and unsatisfactory explanations — have been proved. By completing and tabling the inquiry, Parliament has ensured that the case enters the institutional record, underscoring accountability in the judiciary even after resignation.
