A three-member inquiry committee has concluded that all three charges against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma were proved. The panel found that a substantial amount of unexplained cash was discovered at his official residence, important evidence was not adequately preserved and his explanations regarding the incident were evasive and unsatisfactory.
The findings concern the cash discovered in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlak Crescent in Delhi following a fire on March 14, 2025.
However, the committee did not conclude that Justice Varma personally owned the cash in a criminal-law sense. Instead, it held that a substantial quantity of unexplained money was found on premises under his control and that he failed to satisfactorily explain its presence, source or ownership.
WHAT DID THE INQUIRY FIND?
Constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the committee examined three formal charges against Justice Varma.
Unexplained cash at official residence
The committee found that a significant quantity of Rs 500 notes was present in the storeroom after the fire.
According to the report, the evidence indicated the presence of bundles, heaps and stacks of currency rather than a small number of scattered notes.
The panel said Justice Varma was unable to adequately explain the origin of the money, who it belonged to or why it was kept there.
It also rejected his claim that the storeroom was completely beyond his control, stating that it was part of his official residential premises and remained under his institutional control.
Failure to preserve evidence
The second charge related to the handling of the site following the fire.
The committee found that the storeroom was not sealed immediately and that cleaning was carried out after first responders had departed. By the time an official inspection took place, the cash was no longer present.
The panel concluded that crucial evidence had not been properly secured or preserved.
It noted the presence of Justice Varma’s Private Secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and household staff member Mohd Rahil near the storeroom during the cleaning. However, it did not find that Justice Varma himself had taken away the cash.
Evasive and unsatisfactory explanations
The panel also found Justice Varma’s explanations inadequate, saying they failed to sufficiently answer important questions concerning the cash’s presence, source and ownership, as well as the actions taken after the fire.
His responses were described as “evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect”, with the committee saying they fell short of the level of transparency and institutional responsibility expected in such circumstances.
WHY IS THE EXACT AMOUNT OF CASH UNKNOWN?
The committee was unable to determine the exact amount of money because the cash was never formally seized, counted, inventoried or preserved at the site.
Therefore, although the panel concluded that a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes had been present, it could not establish the precise value.
WHAT DID JUSTICE VARMA ARGUE?
Justice Varma denied the allegations and maintained that no cash had been recovered from his residence.
He said he was not present when the fire occurred and was not among the initial responders, arguing that the premises were under the control of officials who were there at the time.
His defence also suggested possibilities including conspiracy, planting of currency, counterfeit notes and removal of the money by first responders.
The committee, however, said these allegations were not backed by evidence from the defence. It noted that no defence witnesses or affidavits were presented and rejected his argument that the storeroom was completely outside his control.
Justice Varma subsequently stopped participating in the proceedings after the presenting side completed its evidence and cross-examination.
WHAT DO THE FINDINGS MEAN?
The committee's conclusions are significant, but they do not constitute a criminal conviction.
The panel found all three charges proved for the purposes of the parliamentary process concerning his removal. It did not determine under criminal law that the money personally belonged to Justice Varma.
Its principal finding was that a substantial amount of unexplained cash was discovered on premises under his control, that he failed to adequately account for it and that important evidence relating to the incident was not properly preserved.
HOW IT ALL BEGAN
The controversy began on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi.
During firefighting efforts, stacks of cash, some reportedly exceeding 1.5 feet in height, were allegedly discovered at the residence.
The discovery triggered a major controversy, following which then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna ordered an in-house inquiry.
Justice Varma was later transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court, while his judicial responsibilities were withdrawn pending the investigation.
HOW DID THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY PROCEED?
The Joint Inquiry Committee was formed in September 2025 after the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted a motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal.
The committee held its first meeting on September 17 and formally framed the charges against him on November 26.
Justice Varma challenged the committee’s constitution, but the Supreme Court rejected his petition on January 16, 2026.
The evidentiary proceedings began later that month. During the inquiry, Justice Varma’s side sought access to records, electronic evidence and official documents, while the committee directed the Delhi Police, CRPF and fire services to produce specific records.
From March 13 to March 17, several first responders and other officials were examined and cross-examined. The presenting side concluded its evidence on March 17.
WHAT HAPPENS TO JUSTICE VARMA NOW?
Justice Varma had already submitted his resignation as a judge of the Allahabad High Court in April, while the parliamentary inquiry was still in progress.
This initially raised questions about whether the removal proceedings would continue, as a judge’s resignation does not require formal acceptance by the President to take effect.
The situation has become more complex following the committee’s finding that all three charges were proved.
Government sources have indicated that a motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal could still be introduced during Parliament’s Winter Session.
His name also remains on the list of judges of the Allahabad High Court, creating further uncertainty over his status.
The developments have therefore raised an unusual constitutional question over whether Parliament can pursue a removal motion against a judge who has already tendered his resignation but whose name continues to appear on the High Court rolls.
If the government proceeds with the motion, the committee’s findings are expected to serve as the basis for the parliamentary proceedings, in which Justice Varma would also have an opportunity to put forward his defence.
