Justice Yashwant Varma has been found guilty on all three charges by the Lok Sabha inquiry panel investigating the cash-at-home case involving the former Allahabad High Court judge. The three-member committee concluded that his explanation regarding the large quantity of unaccounted cash discovered at his official residence was evasive, misleading, and unsupported by evidence.
The inquiry report was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday, marking a significant development in one of the most closely watched judicial controversies in recent years.
Fire at official residence triggered the investigation
The case came to light after a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi on the night of March 14, 2025. During the aftermath of the fire, a substantial amount of burnt and unaccounted currency was reportedly found inside a storeroom on the premises.
The committee’s 126-page report said the evidence established the presence of a large quantity of currency within the official residence, the failure to satisfactorily explain its presence, and the subsequent non-availability of the cash.
Although the panel said there was insufficient direct evidence to prove that the money personally belonged to Justice Varma, it rejected his claim that he had no knowledge of the cash or responsibility for what happened to it after it was discovered.
Panel rejects defence, holds all charges proved
The inquiry committee consisted of Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, former Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shrikrishna Chandrashekhar, who has since been elevated to the Supreme Court, and senior advocate BV Acharya.
The panel rejected Justice Varma’s argument that the storeroom where the cash was found was outside his control. It pointed to evidence showing that a locked cabinet containing his personal belongings was located in the same room, establishing a sufficient connection between the judge and the premises.
As a result, the committee held the first charge proved.
The second charge related to the failure to preserve the burnt currency and other material evidence after the fire. While the panel did not find direct evidence that Justice Varma personally removed the cash, it held him responsible for failing to ensure that evidence from premises under his institutional control was preserved.
The report also examined the role of individuals associated with his household and official establishment in handling the storeroom and the currency after the fire.
Committee calls explanation ‘false’ and ‘misleading’
The inquiry panel was particularly critical of Justice Varma’s defence during the proceedings. It examined his initial denial of any knowledge of the cash, followed by claims that the money had been planted and that there were deficiencies in the collection and preservation of evidence.
According to the report, these explanations failed to account for the presence of the cash or undermine the evidence presented before the committee.
The panel also drew an adverse inference from Justice Varma’s decision not to appear in the witness box and face cross-examination. It said parts of his defence were false and described his overall explanation as evasive and misleading.
The third charge was therefore also held proved.
Resignation came during parliamentary proceedings
The findings follow an earlier in-house inquiry initiated by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna after the controversy emerged in March 2025. After that inquiry found Justice Varma’s explanation unsatisfactory, he was asked to resign or face constitutional removal proceedings.
Justice Varma declined to resign initially, and the matter was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister. The Lok Sabha later admitted a motion for his removal and constituted the statutory inquiry committee.
However, Justice Varma resigned from judicial office on April 9, 2026, while the parliamentary inquiry was still underway.
What happens next?
With the report now tabled in Parliament, attention will turn to whether lawmakers choose to pursue any further action despite Justice Varma’s resignation. The findings could still have implications for parliamentary proceedings and broader discussions on judicial accountability and the constitutional process governing the removal of judges.