The Lok Sabha Committee inquiring into allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, former judge of the Allahabad and Delhi High Court, has concluded that all three Articles of Charge framed against him are proved, with the panel finding substantial unexplained currency at his official residence, failure to preserve material evidence after its discovery, and evasive and misleading explanations by the judge.

The report of the Committee, constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 by the Speaker in August 2025, was tabled in the Lok Sabha today.

The committee had framed three Articles of charges against Justice Varma: discovery and possession of unexplained currency; second, failure to preserve the material evidence, and thirdly, the misleading explanations given as to why there was unaccounted cash at the first place.

Cash found in official residential premises

The committee said its first charge concerned the discovery and possession of unexplained Indian currency in a storeroom at the judge's official residence at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi.

It found that substantial quantities of ₹500 notes - described by witnesses as bundles, heaps and stacks of burnt, half-burnt, wet and scattered notes - were present in the storeroom following the fire of March 14-15, 2025. Several Delhi Fire Services and police personnel testified to seeing the currency, with photographic and electronic material also supporting their accounts.

The committee noted that there was failure to preserve the currency notes, which made it impossible to determine the exact amount found inside the storeroom. But that the huge amount of currency was found in the official residence, where there was even a locked liquor cabinet, establishes the fact that the judge had effective control.

Justice Varma had argued throughout the proceedings that he had no access to the storeroom as the same was detached from the official residence. The committee also found that Justice Varma failed to give any satisfactory explanation as to the ownership of unaccounted cash. The committee said when a substantial amount of currency is found in an official residence of a judge, the explanation offered must not merely be basic denial.

Considering many factors, the committee arrived at a conclusion that the first set of charges are proved. However, it clarified that the recording doesn't pertain to a finding of direct personal ownership of currency notes in a criminal sense.

"What stands established is that substantial unexplained currency notes were found within the official premises occupied by the judge; that the storeroom formed part of those premises, and the judge failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding its presence, source or ownership."

Evidence was not preserved

The committee found that the failure to preserve the burnt currency notes was a "material lapse" on the part of the police; but it does not affect the fact that the officials "saw" and "identified" the currency.

The currency and the condition of the storeroom were not properly preserved before the site was sealed and inspected. The notes were not seized or inventoried, no proper inventory or panchnama was prepared, and the storeroom was not immediately sealed. Cleaning subsequently took place after the first responders had left. The currency later became unavailable.

The committee attached particular significance to evidence that Justice Varma was in contact with members of his household establishment after the incident, including his private secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and household staff member Mohd. Rahil. A witness, C.G. Rawat, said he saw Karki and Rahil near the storeroom engaged in cleaning after the fire had been extinguished.

The panel stressed that it was not relying on direct proof that Justice Varma himself physically removed the currency. Instead, it found that he failed to secure and preserve material evidence in premises under his institutional charge and that the disturbance of the scene resulted in the subsequent loss of evidence.

The committee also rejected the argument that responsibility rested solely with fire and police officials. While it acknowledged that those officials had themselves failed to seize and preserve the currency, it said Justice Varma, having become aware of the incident and being in communication with people connected with the premises, did not take steps to ensure that the currency was secured, inventoried or reported. Article II was consequently held proved.

Evasive/misleading reply of judge

The committee stated that initially the judge had completely refuted any claims of unaccounted cash but substantially over a period of time, shifted his defence to non-seizure of notes or possibility of planting or larger conspiracy.

It also noted that the judge didn't lead any evidence on this side nor gave a list of defence witnesses. In conclusion, it found the third charges to be proved.

The panel also noted that Justice Varma withdrew from the proceedings after the presenting side had completed its evidence and witnesses had been cross-examined. Although the committee said his withdrawal was not, by itself, proof of the charge, it considered its significance in the context of his failure to produce evidence supporting the factual allegations he had raised.

The committee said his explanation was “evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect.” It found that the response did not adequately address the presence of substantial currency witnessed by independent officials, did not set out what inquiries had allegedly been made, and did not establish what steps had been taken to preserve the site or substantiate allegations of foul play.

About the Committee