Justice Yashwant Varma inquiry panel finds all 3 charges proved, calls cash defence ‘evasive, misleading’

A three-member inquiry committee probing allegations against former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has found all three articles of charge against him proved, holding that his explanation over 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, stopped short of finding that the cash belonged personally to Justice Varma, citing a lack of substantial evidence establishing ownership. However, it rejected his claim that he had no knowledge of the currency or responsibility for what happened to it after the cash was discovered following a fire at his official residence in Delhi on March 14, 2025.

“The cumulative record therefore establishes the presence of substantial currency notes within the official premises, failure to satisfactorily explain its presence, failure to preserve the material, later non-availability of the currency notes, and absence of any substantiated defence capable of displacing the evidence led before the Committee,” the report said.

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.

Panel rejects claim storeroom was beyond judge’s control

The committee rejected Justice Varma’s contention that the storeroom where the cash was discovered was outside his control. It pointed to evidence of a locked cabinet containing his personal belongings in the room and concluded that the circumstances established a sufficient connection between the judge and the premises.

The first article of charge was therefore held proved.

The panel also criticised the failure to preserve the burnt currency following the fire. Although it found no direct evidence that Justice Varma personally removed the cash, it held him responsible for failing to ensure the preservation of material evidence from premises under his institutional control.

The committee also examined the role of members of his household and establishment in handling the storeroom and currency and held the second article of charge proved.

‘False’, evasive and misleading defence

The committee was particularly critical of Justice Varma’s explanation during the inquiry. It examined his initial denial of knowledge about the cash and his subsequent allegations of conspiracy, planting of currency and shortcomings in the collection and preservation of evidence.

The panel concluded that these explanations failed to account for the presence of the cash or undermine the evidence presented before it.

It also drew an adverse inference from Justice Varma’s decision not to enter the witness box and face cross-examination. The committee said his defence was “false” in parts and found his overall explanation evasive and misleading.

The third article of charge was consequently held proved.

Inquiry follows 2025 cash controversy

The findings follow an earlier in-house inquiry ordered by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna after the controversy erupted in March 2025. After that panel found Justice Varma’s explanation unsatisfactory, CJI Khanna asked him to resign or face the constitutional process for his removal.

Justice Varma declined, following which the report was forwarded to the President and Prime Minister.

Parliamentary removal proceedings subsequently began, with the Lok Sabha admitting a motion against him and constituting the statutory inquiry committee.

Justice Varma, however, resigned from judicial office on April 9, 2026, while the parliamentary inquiry was still underway.

The tabling of the report now raises questions over the implications of the findings and whether Parliament can still pursue any proceedings concerning his removal despite his resignation.