Justice Varma's withdrawal cannot end statutory inquiry, Lok Sabha panel says

The three-member Lok Sabha committee investigating the discovery of burnt currency notes at the official residence of former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has said that his withdrawal from the proceedings came too late to stop the statutory inquiry.

The committee's report, tabled in Parliament on Wednesday (August 12, 2026), responded to questions about why it continued its work even after Justice Varma resigned as a judge on April 9. The panel said a statutory inquiry cannot depend on the unilateral decision of the judge under scrutiny, especially after evidence had substantially come on record.

The report held that the charges against Justice Varma were "proved", describing his explanations as "evasive and unsatisfactory". The currency notes were found at his residence in the national capital while he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge.

In a communication to the committee on April 9, Justice Varma announced his withdrawal from the proceedings, citing procedural unfairness, reversal of burden of proof, and non-availability of CCTV footage. Similar communications were sent to the President and the Chief Justice of India the same day.

The committee, however, countered these objections. It noted that rather than making allegations, the former judge ought to have entered the witness box to deny the charge. "The least that could have been done by the judge was to enter the witness box and deny the charge, which he did not choose to do, but abandoned (withdrew) from further participation in the inquiry," the report said.

The panel also argued that the inquiry had progressed well beyond a preliminary stage. By the time of withdrawal, charges had been framed, defence statements received, documents supplied and inspected, applications heard, and nine witnesses examined. Even cross-examination on behalf of the judge had been conducted.

"This was not a case where the inquiry had not commenced, or where the judge had not been heard, or where the material had remained untested," the committee observed. "The proceedings had, therefore, crossed the stage of mere procedural arrangement and entered, and substantially completed, the evidentiary stage."

The committee asserted that Justice Varma had been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. It added that the inquiry could proceed even in his absence, since there was sufficient proof that he had been invited to participate. However, the report noted that this was not merely a case of absence, as the judge had actively participated through advocates, contested procedures, and cross-examined witnesses before withdrawing.

The report also warned that allowing a judge to halt an inquiry by stepping aside would set a dangerous precedent. "Silence may permit a partial account to assume the character of the whole," it said, underlining the need to complete a fair and thorough examination regardless of a respondent's participation.

The committee's findings have been presented to Parliament, and it will now be for the legislative and executive branches to decide on further action. The inquiry was set up after the discovery of the currency notes came to light, and its report marks a key step in the parliamentary process of addressing allegations against a sitting judge. The panel's decision to proceed despite the resignation underscores the principle that statutory investigations are not subject to the whims of the individual under inquiry.