A Lok Sabha Inquiry Committee has found Justice Yashwant Varma guilty on all three charges related to the discovery of substantial unexplained cash at his official residence. The committee's report, tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, concluded that the former judge of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts failed to explain the large sums of currency and later interfered with crucial evidence. His explanations during the inquiry were deemed evasive and misleading.[livelaw+8]
Unexplained Cash Discovery
The first charge concerned the presence of unexplained Indian currency notes at Justice Varma's official residence, located at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi.Firefighters and police personnel discovered bundles of ₹500 notes in a storeroom after a fire broke out on the night of March 14-15, 2025. Witnesses described seeing "bundles, heaps and stacks of burnt, half-burnt, wet and scattered notes" spread across the room. Photographic and electronic evidence also supported these accounts.[livelaw+9]
Justice Varma, who was a Delhi High Court judge at the time of the incident, argued he had no access to this storeroom, claiming it was detached from his main residence. However, the inquiry committee rejected this defense. The panel found that a locked liquor cabinet, containing his personal items, was also present in the storeroom, establishing his "effective control" over the premises. The committee ultimately concluded that Justice Varma failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the presence, source, or ownership of the huge amounts of cash found in his official residence.[livelaw+6]
Evidence Tampering Allegations Proved
The second charge focused on Justice Varma's failure to preserve material evidence and causing interference with it. The committee found that after the fire, the burnt currency notes were not properly secured or preserved, making it impossible to determine the exact amount found. The evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before it could be lawfully sealed and inspected. This failure to secure the evidence led to the subsequent disappearance of the cash, which remains unexplained.[livelaw+9]
The panel noted that while there was no direct evidence that Justice Varma personally removed the cash, he was held responsible for failing to ensure the preservation of material evidence from premises under his institutional control. The committee also examined the role of individuals associated with his household in handling the storeroom and the currency.[scroll+4]
Evasive and Misleading Explanations
The third and final charge against Justice Varma was that he provided evasive and misleading explanations. The committee stated that his explanations, including a response given on March 22, 2025, and subsequent statements, "did not exhibit the candour, transparency and institutional responsibility" expected of a judge in such circumstances. The panel found his statements "evasive and unsatisfactory" when measured against the evidence provided by independent official witnesses and other corroborative materials.[livelaw+6]
Justice Varma had claimed that the accusations against him were part of a conspiracy to frame and malign him. He also withdrew from the inquiry proceedings after the presenting side completed its evidence and witnesses were cross-examined. The committee drew an adverse inference from his decision not to enter the witness box or call any defense witnesses, concluding that his overall explanation was "evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect."[livelaw+12]
Committee Findings and Next Steps
The three-member inquiry committee was constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in August 2025, under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968. It was led by Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar. Other members included Justice Shrikrishna Chandrashekhar, then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and now a Supreme Court Justice, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya. The comprehensive 126-page report was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday.[livelaw+10]
While the committee found all three charges proven, it stopped short of directly stating that the currency belonged to Justice Varma due to a lack of substantial evidence establishing personal ownership. However, it firmly rejected his defense, stating that the cumulative record proved the presence of substantial currency, his failure to explain it, and his failure to preserve the evidence. Justice Varma resigned during the inquiry, but the government is reportedly considering moving forward with impeachment proceedings. This potential move aims to establish a precedent against judges involved in serious irregularities, even after their resignation.[hindustantimes+6]
