Former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, who came under scrutiny after a large quantity of cash was found at his official residence in the national capital, has been found guilty on all three charges as he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of cash. This is the finding of a panel formed by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to probe the cash at the judge's house.
According to the report, a fire broke out in the storeroom of Justice Varma's official residence at 30 Tughlaq Crescent in Delhi during the night of March 14-15, 2025. Delhi Police and fire service officials who arrived at the scene found a large number of burnt, partially burnt, wet and scattered Rs 500 notes in the storeroom. Statements from several officials, along with photographs and video recordings, corroborated the presence of the cash.
An inquiry committee of a three-member panel investigating allegations against Justice Varma in connection with an alleged cash-related row stated that the notes were not seized from the scene, nor were they counted, nor was a complete inventory prepared. Therefore, it is impossible to provide the exact amount of cash in the report. But according to the Committee, this does not mean that there were fewer notes. The available evidence clearly shows that there were a large number of Rs 500 notes in the storeroom.
No satisfactory answer regarding cash
The first allegation stated that a large amount of cash was found in the government premises under Justice Verma's control, with no clear source or ownership. The committee found this allegation proven. The report stated that Justice Verma could not provide a satisfactory explanation for the discovery, source, or ownership of the notes.
"Substantial unexplained Rs 500 denomination currency notes were found in the storeroom situated within the official residential premises at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi. The Judge failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source or ownership thereof," it said.
The committee made it clear that it was not finding that the notes were personally owned by Justice Varma. However, it held that the presence of such a large amount of cash on premises under his control, coupled with the absence of a satisfactory explanation regarding the money, was sufficient to establish the charge.
The committee did not accept Justice Varma's arguments regarding his absence from the premises, access to the residence by other people, or his claim that the cash did not belong to him.
The argument that someone had placed the notes there as part of a conspiracy also found no concrete evidence. According to the committee, no individual was identified, no proven arrival date, and no explanation was given as to how such a large sum of money was transported unnoticed.
Evidence was not preserved
The second allegation concerned the failure to properly preserve the scene and the evidence present there after the fire was extinguished. According to the report, the condition of the storeroom was altered before government officials could inspect and seal the premises, and the cash found there subsequently disappeared.
According to the report, the condition of the room was altered before it could be lawfully sealed and inspected. The material present there subsequently became unavailable. However, the committee did not directly conclude that Justice Varma himself removed the notes. The charge was found proved on the ground that crucial evidence was not preserved, and the condition of the scene was altered.
"Material evidence was not secured or preserved; the evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before lawful sealing and inspection; and the later non-availability of the currency notes remains unexplained. The finding rests on failure to preserve, acquiescence in disturbance through the establishment attached to the premises, and resulting loss of material evidence, and not upon proof of personal physical removal by the Judge," the report has said.
The committee said that Justice Verma's defense did not answer the most important questions regarding the discovery of a large amount of notes in the storeroom. According to the report, his response did not explain what steps he took after the incident, what inquiries he made of staff or household members, what responses he received, and what actions were taken to secure the scene.
Explanation was evasive and incomplete
The third charge concerned the different explanations given by Justice Varma regarding the incident. The Parliamentary panel has further stated that his answers lacked the clarity expected from a person holding a constitutional position in this matter.
According to the report, Justice Varma denied having knowledge of the cash in his response. His position later changed, with him raising issues concerning the seizure of the cash, its counting and subsequent cleaning of the premises.
The report also said Justice Varma referred to the possible role of staff and suggested that the cash may have been placed or removed from the storeroom, and alluded to a possible conspiracy. However, the committee noted that no concrete evidence or witnesses were produced to substantiate these claims. The Committee concluded that his explanations were evasive, incomplete, and misleading in their impact.
"The explanation furnished by the Judge, particularly the reply dated 22.03.2025 and the subsequent stand taken, did not exhibit the candour, transparency and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances. It remained evasive and unsatisfactory when tested against the evidence of independent official witnesses and corroborative material," it said.
Committee flags lapses by fire and police officials
The committee also raised questions about the role of fire and police officials in handling the scene.
It said that officials who reached the premises were expected to discharge their responsibilities in accordance with the law. However, the failure to seize, inventory and preserve the currency amounted to a serious lapse. The committee had already noted shortcomings in the initial handling of the scene, particularly in preserving the evidence.
The key conclusion of the report is that all three charges against Justice Yashwant Varma were found proved. At the same time, the committee clarified that it did not make a direct finding that the currency belonged personally to Justice Varma or that he himself removed the notes.
Also Read
Justice Yashwant Varma, embroiled in cash row, tenders resignation to President Murmu
