New Delhi: A three-member inquiry committee probing allegations against former High Court judge Yashwant Varma has found all three articles of charge against him proved, holding that his explanation for the discovery of a large quantity of unaccounted currency at his official residence was “evasive” and “misleading.”
The 126-page report, tabled in both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday, August 12, concluded that unexplained Rs 500 denomination currency notes were found in a storeroom within Justice Varma’s official residential premises at 30, Tughlaq Crescent in Delhi during a blaze in March last year, and that he failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding their presence, source or ownership.
The report was laid separately in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha by the respective secretaries general, months after the panel submitted its findings to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in May. It runs into two volumes and includes oral and documentary evidence recorded during the investigation.
Panel stops short on ownership
The committee stopped short of holding that the currency belonged to Justice Varma, for want of substantial evidence establishing personal ownership. It nonetheless rejected his defence that he had no knowledge of the cash or responsibility for what happened to it after its discovery following the fire on March 14, 2025.
The cumulative record, the report said, established the presence of substantial currency notes within the official premises, the failure to satisfactorily explain it, the failure to preserve the material, the later non-availability of the notes and the absence of any substantiated defence capable of displacing the evidence before the committee.
The panel comprised Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, then Bombay High Court chief justice Shrikrishna Chandrashekhar, who has since been elevated to the Supreme Court, and senior advocate BV Acharya.
All three charges held proved
The committee rejected Justice Varma’s contention that the storeroom was beyond his control, noting evidence of a locked cabinet containing his personal articles in the room and holding that the circumstances established a sufficient connection between the judge and the premises. The first article of charge was consequently held proved.
It was also critical of the failure to preserve the burnt currency after the fire. While finding no direct evidence that Justice Varma himself removed the cash, the panel held him responsible for failing to ensure preservation of material evidence from premises under his institutional control, and examined the role of people attached to his household in the handling of the storeroom and the currency. The second charge was held proved.
On the third charge, the committee examined his initial denial of any knowledge of the currency and his subsequent allegations of conspiracy, planting of cash and deficiencies in the collection and preservation of evidence, finding that these failed to account for the cash or displace the evidence before it. It drew an adverse inference from his decision not to enter the witness box for cross-examination, holding parts of his defence to be false and his overall explanation evasive and misleading.
Resignation leaves proceedings in limbo
The findings follow an earlier in-house inquiry ordered by then chief justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna after the controversy erupted in March 2025. That panel had concluded that Justice Varma had “active or tacit control” over the storeroom where the cash was found and held his explanation unsatisfactory, following which CJI Khanna asked him to resign or face the constitutional process for removal.
He declined, and the report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister.
In July 2025, over 200 MPs signed a motion seeking his removal and Birla constituted the statutory Judges Inquiry Committee the following month. Justice Varma, who was a Delhi High Court judge repatriated to his parent Allahabad High Court after the controversy, resigned from judicial office on April 9, 2026, while the parliamentary inquiry was under way.
His resignation is yet to be notified by the Law Ministry.
With the resignation, removal proceedings have virtually become infructuous, though it remains to be seen whether Parliament can still consider the implications of the findings.
| 
