A three-member Judges Inquiry Committee has substantiated all three Articles of Charge against Justice Yashwant Varma, a former judge of the Allahabad and Delhi High Court.
The proved allegations comprise the discovery and possession of unexplained currency, failure to preserve material evidence, and offering misleading explanations concerning the unaccounted funds.
According to Live Law, the report of the committee, constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in August 2025, was tabled in the Lok Sabha on August 12.
It was headed by Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar and included then Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and senior advocate BV Acharya. The panel submitted its report to the Speaker on May 18, 2026.
The inquiry stemmed from the controversy following a fire at Justice Varma’s official residence in New Delhi in March 2025, after which burnt and partly burnt currency was found in a storeroom. Justice Varma denied wrongdoing and resigned as a judge on April 10.
The first charge related to the discovery of Indian currency in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s official residence at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi, following a fire on March 15, 2025. The committee noted that several Delhi Fire Services and police personnel had testified to seeing substantial quantities of Rs 500 notes, described as bundles, heaps and stacks of burnt, half-burnt, wet and scattered currency.
The panel said photographic and electronic material also supported the accounts of the officials who witnessed the currency. However, since the notes were not seized, inventoried or properly preserved, the exact amount of cash found could not be established.
Justice Varma had maintained that he had no access to the storeroom because it was detached from the official residence. The committee rejected the explanation and found that the storeroom formed part of the official premises occupied by the judge. It also held that he had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source or ownership of the currency.
“What stands established is that substantial unexplained currency notes were found within the official premises occupied by the judge; that the storeroom formed part of those premises, and the judge failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding its presence, source or ownership,” the committee said.
The panel, however, clarified that its finding did not amount to a finding of direct personal ownership of the currency notes in the criminal sense.
On the second charge, the committee found that the failure to preserve the burnt currency was a “material lapse” by the police. The notes were not seized or inventoried, no proper panchnama was prepared and the storeroom was not immediately sealed. Cleaning subsequently took place after the first responders had left, following which the currency became unavailable.
According to the Bar and Bench, Delhi Police Head Constable Roop Chand told the committee that he did not seize the burnt cash “having regard to the sensitivity of the issue as it related to a sitting judge of the High Court”. He said he had acted under the instructions of Tughlaq Road police station SHO Umesh Malik, who had directed him to take photographs and videos of the place where the fire had occurred.
The committee held that the police omissions amounted to a lapse but said they did not negate the testimony of several officials who had seen and identified the currency.
“This lapse should be viewed in the light of the fact that this occurrence happened at the official residence of a sitting Judge of a High Court and the police and fire officials were fully cognizant of this fact,” the panel said.
The report also examined what happened to the cash after it was seen at the residence. Witness CG Rawat, who was posted at the official residence’s gate, told the committee that Justice Varma’s private secretary Rajinder Karki and another staff member, Mohd Rahil, were carrying out cleaning work near the storeroom after the fire had been extinguished. Rawat said that his offer to assist was declined.
The committee considered this statement alongside call-detail records showing that Justice Varma was in contact with Karki and Rahil around the relevant time. It said the circumstance “materially bears upon the explained interval between discovery and non-availability” of the currency.
The panel did not record a finding that Justice Varma or any particular individual physically removed the cash. However, it considered the circumstances surrounding the cleaning of the storeroom relevant to whether the evidentiary condition of the site had been preserved.
“Once currency notes had been seen by officials, the exclusion of another security personnel from the immediate vicinity of the storeroom during subsequent cleaning is relevant to the question whether the evidentiary condition of the room was preserved,” the report stated.
The committee also rejected suggestions attributed to Justice Varma that the currency could have been removed by fire or police personnel.
“The judge has not disclosed his source of information that these officials have taken away the money. These suggestions coming from the judge does not appeal to logic,” the report stated.
On the third charge, the committee examined Justice Varma’s explanations regarding the cash. The judge initially completely denied claims concerning unaccounted cash but subsequently shifted his defence towards the non-seizure of the notes, the possibility of planting and a larger conspiracy.
The panel noted that Justice Varma did not lead evidence in support of those claims and did not provide a list of defence witnesses. It also noted that he withdrew from the proceedings after the presenting side had completed its evidence and witnesses had been cross-examined.
While the committee said his withdrawal from the proceedings could not by itself establish the charge, it considered it in the context of his failure to produce evidence supporting the factual allegations he had raised.
The committee concluded that Justice Varma’s explanation was “evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect”. It found that his response did not adequately address the presence of substantial currency witnessed by independent officials, explain what inquiries had allegedly been made or establish what steps had been taken to preserve the site and substantiate allegations of foul play.