Ex-Judge Yashwant Varma Failed to Explain Cash at Residence: Parliamentary Panel

A parliamentary panel has found that former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the large amount of cash discovered at his official residence in March 2025. The committee, formed by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to investigate the matter, submitted its report to Parliament on Wednesday.

The case came to light after a fire broke out at Justice Varma's official residence at 30, Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi, on the night of March 14, 2025. Firefighters who responded to the incident reportedly found large quantities of burnt currency notes in a storeroom.

The committee's report, details of which have been accessed, states that “large quantities of unexplained Rs 500 currency notes were found” in the storeroom. It further says that the judge “failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source and ownership of the cash.”

The panel also raised concerns about the handling of evidence. The report notes that “material evidence was not properly secured or preserved” and that “the evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before lawful sealing and inspection.” It added that the “subsequent disappearance/non-availability of the currency notes remains unexplained.”

The committee attributed the loss of material evidence to the “failure to preserve evidence” and the fact that staff attached to the premises were allowed to disturb the storeroom. However, it clarified that it “did not find proof that the judge personally removed the cash.”

In its findings, the committee described Varma's explanation, including a reply dated March 22, 2025, as “unsatisfactory.” It said his response “lacked candour, transparency and institutional responsibility.”

The report is presented in two volumes, including oral and documentary evidence recorded during the investigation.

Earlier, an in-house committee constituted by the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, had concluded that Justice Varma had “active or tacit control” over the storeroom where the cash was found.

Following the controversy, Varma was repatriated to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court. Parliament had initiated removal proceedings against him, but he subsequently resigned, rendering those proceedings infructuous.