Parliament panel: Charges against Justice Yashwant Varma proved; explanation evasive

A three-member committee formed under the Judges Inquiry Act has found all charges against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma to be “proved”. The panel, led by Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, submitted its report to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in May, and it was laid before both Houses of Parliament on Tuesday.

The committee observed that Justice Varma’s explanation regarding the discovery of large amounts of burnt currency in a storeroom of his official residence remained “evasive and unsatisfactory”. It noted that he “failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation on the presence and ownership of cash found in the store room of his residence”. The report consists of two volumes, including oral and documentary evidence recorded during the inquiry.

The controversy dates back to March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. Firefighters called to douse the flames reportedly discovered substantial quantities of burnt cash in a storeroom. The incident triggered a political and legal uproar, leading to demands for a thorough investigation.

Following the incident, Justice Varma, who was serving at the Delhi High Court, was repatriated to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court. He has since resigned, though his resignation has not yet been formally notified by the Law Ministry. The removal proceedings against him have virtually become infructuous in light of his resignation, but the inquiry continued as per the statutory process.

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 specific storeroom where the cash was found. In July 2025, more than 200 Members of Parliament signed a motion to impeach the judge, prompting Speaker Om Birla to constitute the three-member Judges Inquiry Committee in August 2025.

The committee’s report states: “The Committee accordingly submits this report, together with the record of proceedings, documents, exhibits and material forming part of the inquiry, for such further action as may be considered in accordance with law.” The Secretaries General of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha laid the report in their respective Houses.

Legal experts point to a Supreme Court judgment that a judge is “deemed to have resigned” upon tendering resignation to the President and making it public. A judge’s resignation is not subject to acceptance by the President. The President gives formal acceptance, after which the resignation is notified by the Department of Justice in the Law Ministry.

The development marks a significant chapter in India’s judicial accountability framework. While the resignation may end the immediate proceedings, the parliamentary committee’s findings carry weight in the public record and could have implications for future processes.