Cash discovery row: LS panel finds charges against Justice Varma proved

A Lok Sabha inquiry committee has found merit in all the three charges framed against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma and concluded that unexplained cash was found in the storeroom of his official residence.

 

The inquiry committee also concluded that material evidence was not preserved after a fire broke out at his residence and his subsequent explanations were ‘evasive’ and ‘misleading’.

 

The findings are contained in a 126-page main report, with a 64-page second volume detailing the proceedings, applications, and orders passed during the inquiry.

 

The three-member committee was constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, following the initiation of proceedings in Parliament seeking Varma’s removal.

 

 

The inquiry followed a fire at Varma’s official residence at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi, on the night of March 14, 2025.

 

Fire and police officials, who reached the premises after the blaze was doused reportedly saw burnt, half-burnt, and wet currency notes inside a storeroom.

 

The committee, however, did not find that Varma personally owned or removed the cash. Its findings centered on his responsibility for the official premises, his failure to satisfactorily explain the presence of the currency and the handling of the scene after the fire.

 

On the first charge, concerning discovery and possession of unexplained currency within official premises, the committee said the exact amount could not be established because the notes were neither seized nor inventoried.

 

It, however, found the testimony of several fire and police officials mutually corroborative and supported by photographic and video evidence.

 

The committee rejected Varma’s argument that the storeroom was outside his control because it was detached from the main residential quarters and accessible to staff and others. It held that the room remained part of the official residential premises allotted to and occupied by him.

 

Shared access, it said, did not make the room an unregulated public space. It also rejected suggestions that the currency could have been planted. No person was identified, no occasion of entry was established and no material was produced to substantiate the conspiracy theory.

 

The committee found Article I proved on the basis of the presence of substantial unexplained currency, Varma’s effective control over the premises and his failure to account for its source or ownership.

 

The second charge related to failure to preserve material evidence. The committee accepted that Varma was not physically present when the fire broke out or when first responders arrived. It also noted lapses by fire and police officials in failing to seize, inventory or preserve the currency. But it found that the responsibility did not end there.

 

Evidence showed that Varma’s private secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and household staff member Mohammad Rahil were present near the storeroom after the fire and were involved in cleaning activity. The committee noted that Varma was in touch with them but did not take steps to secure the site, ensure seizure of the currency or insist on an inventory.

 

Article II was consequently held proved, although the committee expressly clarified that it was not finding that Varma personally removed the currency. Its conclusion rested on failure to preserve the evidence and acquiescence in disturbance of the scene, resulting in the loss of material evidence.

 

The third charge concerned evasive and misleading explanations. The committee noted that Varma’s initial response denied knowledge of any cash in the storeroom. His later defence, however, raised possibilities including lack of seizure, fake currency, removal by first responders, conspiracy and possible involvement of staff.

 

The committee found that none of these alternative explanations was substantiated. It noted that nine witnesses had been examined, documents and electronic material marked and cross-examination completed before the matter reached the defence stage.

 

Varma did not ultimately file a list of defence witnesses or affidavits in the first line of questioning.

 

The committee concluded that his explanation was evasive, incomplete and misleading because it failed to address the substantial currency seen by independent officials or adequately explain what steps had been taken to preserve the scene. Article III was therefore proved.

 

The second volume records that the committee began its proceedings on September 17, 2025, and examined extensive documentary and electronic material. It also considered multiple applications by Varma concerning access to records, disclosure of material, production of official documents, and deferment of cross-examination.

 

Following the controversy, an in-house inquiry was conducted and the then Chief Justice of India advised Varma to resign or seek voluntary retirement. After he declined, a motion seeking his removal was admitted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on August 12, 2025, and a three-member committee headed by Supreme Court judge Aravind Kumar was constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

 

Varma resigned from the Allahabad High Court in April 2026, while the statutory inquiry was still underway. The committee, nevertheless, completed its proceedings and submitted its report to the Lok Sabha Speaker on May 18, 2026.

 

The panel also has former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Senior Advocate BV Acharya of Karnataka High Court as members.