Allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma proven: Judges' panel finds interference with evidence, no explanation for cash

A three-member judges inquiry committee has found all three charges against Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma proved, including possession of substantial unexplained cash at his official residence, interference with material evidence and furnishing evasive and misleading explanations.

The committee constituted by Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla tabled its report before the Lok Sabha on Wednesday,

The inquiry concerned the discovery of burnt and partially burnt ₹500 notes following a fire at Justice Varma’s official residence in New Delhi, on the intervening night of March 14 and 15, 2025. Justice Varma was then a judge of the Delhi High Court.

“The committee therefore records its final findings that Articles of Charges I, II & III are proved,” the report said.

The committee was headed by Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar and included former Bombay High Court Chief Justice and now Supreme Court Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Senior Advocate BV Acharya.

The committee found that substantial unexplained ₹500 denomination notes were present in the storeroom and that Justice Varma failed to satisfactorily explain their presence, source or ownership.

It relied on the testimony of Delhi Fire Services and Delhi Police personnel who described bundles, heaps and stacks of notes spread across the room. Fire operator Ankit Sehwag said he saw bundles of ₹500 notes over an area extending seven to eight feet from the entrance.

Another firefighter said currency was spread from the door to the end of the storeroom. A police officer said he saw heaps of burnt and half-burnt notes on the floor from the door to the opposite wall, as well as stacks placed on a ledge.

When asked during cross-examination whether the amount exceeded ₹5 lakh, police official Roop Chand said that figure was “too small”.

However, the currency was neither seized nor counted. No inventory or panchnama was prepared and no samples were preserved.

A fire at Justice Varma's house on the evening of March 14 had allegedly led to the recovery of unaccounted cash. At the time, Justice Varma and his wife were traveling in Madhya Pradesh. Only his daughter and aged mother were at home when the fire broke out. A video later surfaced showing bundles of cash burning in the fire.

The incident led to allegations of corruption against Justice Varma, who denied the accusations and said that it appeared to be a conspiracy to frame him.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) then initiated an in-house probe into the allegations and set up a three-member committee on March 22 to conduct the inquiry.

The panel started the probe on March 25 and submitted its report to CJI on May 4. 

The CJI, on receiving the report of the in-house committee, asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. However, since Justice Varma declined to quit, CJI Khanna forwarded the report and the judge's response on it to the President of India and the Prime Minister for removal of the judge.

Following the allegations, Justice Varma was sent back to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court. His judicial work was taken away pending further action.

In August 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla initiated the process to remove Justice Varma from his position by constituting a three-member panel to probe the allegations against him.

The Committee initially comprised Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Senior Advocate BV Acharya. Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar replaced Justice Shrivastava, who retired on March 6.

Justice Varma tendered his resignation from office in April this year before the process of removal could be completed. His resignation is yet to be accepted and notified.

Meanwhile, the committee went ahead and submitted its report.

In its report, the committee said the police and fire personnel acted under “certain apprehension” because the scene was the official bungalow of a sitting judge. They were also under the impression that an official complaint would be filed.

Consequently, the committee said it could not determine the exact amount involved. This, however, did not dilute the evidence that the quantity was “huge and substantial”.

The committee also rejected Justice Varma’s contention that the storeroom was detached from his living quarters and accessible to staff and maintenance personnel.

It noted that the room was within the compound allotted to him and that he had admitted keeping a locked liquor cabinet containing personal articles there. This weakened his plea that the room was wholly outside his use or effective control, the report said.

The most serious findings concerned what happened after the firefighters left.

The storeroom was not immediately sealed. A security official, CG Rawat, said he saw Justice Varma’s Private Secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and household staff member Mohd Rahil near the storeroom after the fire was extinguished.

Rawat said that when he offered to help, Rahil asked him to return to his duty at the gate. He again saw Karki and Rahil engaged in cleaning work around 3 am. By morning, burnt household articles had been moved outside and the cleaning was complete.

“The currency was seen. It was not preserved. The storeroom was not sealed immediately. Cleaning activity occurred after the first responders had left. The material was not later available,” the committee said.

The committee also found that Justice Varma’s explanations changed over time. His initial response broadly denied knowledge of the cash and denied that it had been seen or removed by his family or staff.

His subsequent defence focused on the absence of seizure and quantification, possible fake currency, planting, conspiracy, staff involvement and removal by first responders. The panel noted that no complaint or FIR alleging planting, theft, tampering or foul play was produced.

Justice Varma withdrew from the proceedings after the presenting side completed its evidence and the inquiry reached the stage of defence evidence. He did not enter the witness box or call any member of his family, personal office, household staff or security establishment as a witness.

The panel consequently held that his explanations were evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect.

Justice Varma was represented during the inquiry by Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and Senior Advocate Rajakumar Bhaskar Thakare assisted in presenting the case under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.