Charges proved against Justice Yashwant Verma in cash-at-home case: Probe panel

A inquiry committee has found all three charges against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma proved, concluding that substantial unexplained cash was found at his official residence, material evidence was not properly preserved and his explanations about the episode were evasive and unsatisfactory.The findings relate to cash discovered in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlak Crescent in Delhi after a fire on March 14, 2025.The panel, however, stopped short of concluding that Justice Varma personally owned the money in the criminal-law sense. Its finding was that substantial unexplained cash was found on premises under his control and that he failed to satisfactorily explain its presence, source or ownership.WHAT DID THE INQUIRY FIND?The committee, constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, examined three formal charges against Justice Varma, essentially the specific allegations framed for investigation.Unexplained cash at official residence The committee found that a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes was present in the storeroom after the fire.According to the report, the evidence pointed to bundles, heaps and stacks of currency rather than a few stray notes. The panel said Justice Varma could not satisfactorily explain where the cash came from, who owned it or why it was present there.It also rejected his contention that the storeroom was completely outside his control, holding that it formed part of his official residential premises and remained under his institutional control.Failure to preserve evidenceThe second charge concerned what happened at the scene after the fire.The committee found that the storeroom was not immediately sealed and that cleaning took place after first responders had left. By the time a formal inspection was carried out, the cash was no longer available.It concluded that material evidence had not been properly secured or preserved.The panel referred to the presence of Justice Varma’s Private Secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and household staff member Mohd Rahil near the storeroom during the cleaning process.However, it did not conclude that Justice Varma himself had removed the cash.Evasive and unsatisfactory explanationsThe panel also found Justice Varma’s explanations inadequate, saying they failed to sufficiently address key questions about the presence, source and ownership of the cash and the steps taken after the fire.It described his responses as “evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect” and said they did not reflect the degree of candour and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances.WHY IS THE EXACT AMOUNT OF CASH UNKNOWN?The committee could not establish the precise value of the currency because the cash was never formally seized, counted, inventoried or preserved at the scene.As a result, while the panel concluded that a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes had been present, it could not determine the exact amount.WHAT DID JUSTICE VARMA ARGUE?Justice Varma denied the allegations and maintained that no cash had been recovered from his residence.He argued that he was not present when the fire broke out and was not among the first responders, contending that the site was under the control of officials present at the time.His defence also raised the possibilities of conspiracy, planting of currency, fake notes and removal of money by first responders.The committee, however, said these claims were not supported by defence evidence. It noted that no defence witnesses or affidavits were submitted and ultimately rejected his contention that the storeroom was entirely outside his control.Justice Varma later withdrew from further participation after the presenting side completed its evidence and cross-examination.WHAT DO THE FINDINGS MEAN?The committee’s findings are significant, but they do not amount to a criminal conviction.The panel found the three charges proved for the purposes of the parliamentary removal process. It did not make a criminal-law finding that the cash personally belonged to Justice Varma.Its central conclusion was that substantial unexplained cash was found on premises under his control, that he failed to satisfactorily account for it, and that material evidence connected to the episode was not adequately preserved.HOW IT ALL BEGANThe controversy dates back to March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi.During firefighting operations, stacks of cash, some reportedly more than 1.5 feet high, were said to have been found at the premises.The discovery triggered a major controversy, following which then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna ordered an in-house inquiry.Justice Varma was subsequently transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court, while his judicial work was withdrawn pending the probe.HOW DID THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY PROCEED?The Joint Inquiry Committee was constituted in September 2025 after the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted a motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal.The panel held its first meeting on September 17 and formally framed the charges against him on November 26.Justice Varma challenged the constitution of the committee, but the Supreme Court dismissed his plea on January 16, 2026.The evidentiary phase began later that month. During the proceedings, Justice Varma’s side sought access to records, electronic material and official documents, while the committee ordered specific records to be produced by the Delhi Police, CRPF and fire services.Between March 13 and March 17, several first responders and other officials were examined and cross-examined. The presenting side closed its evidence on March 17.After examining the testimony, documents and other material placed before it, the committee concluded that all three charges had been proved.WHAT HAPPENS TO JUSTICE VARMA NOW?Justice Varma, however, resigned as a judge of the Allahabad High Court while facing the prospect of removal by Parliament, rendering the impeachment proceedings against him infructuous.People familiar with the constitutional process said that under a Supreme Court judgment, a judge is deemed to have resigned once the resignation is tendered to the President and a copy is made public.A judge’s resignation does not require acceptance by the President in the conventional sense.The President subsequently gives formal acknowledgment, following which the resignation is notified by the Department of Justice in the Union Law Ministry.- EndsPublished By: Prateek ChakrabortyPublished On: Aug 12, 2026 15:44 IST