Former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma has been found guilty on all three charges examined by a committee constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to investigate the discovery of a large quantity of cash at his official residence in New Delhi.
The inquiry relates to a fire that broke out in the storeroom of Justice Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlaq Crescent during the night of March 14-15, 2025. Firefighters and Delhi Police personnel who reached the premises found numerous burnt, partially burnt and wet Rs 500 currency notes scattered inside the storeroom. Photographs, videos and statements of officials who witnessed the scene formed an important part of the evidence considered by the committee.
The panel, however, noted that the currency was neither seized nor counted at the site and that no comprehensive inventory was prepared. As a result, the exact amount of cash could not be established. Nevertheless, the committee said the available evidence clearly demonstrated the presence of a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes.
The first charge concerned the presence of a large amount of unexplained cash in government premises under Justice Varma’s control. The committee found the allegation proved, observing that he failed to give a satisfactory explanation about the presence, source or ownership of the currency.
The panel clarified that it was not concluding that the cash personally belonged to Justice Varma. However, it held that the discovery of a substantial amount of unexplained money at premises under his control, coupled with the absence of a convincing explanation, was sufficient to establish the charge.
The committee also rejected arguments relating to Justice Varma’s absence from the residence and the possibility that other persons had access to the premises. His suggestion that the money could have been planted as part of a conspiracy was also not supported by concrete evidence, as no person was identified and there was no convincing account of when or how the cash could have been brought into the storeroom.
The second charge related to the handling and preservation of evidence after the fire. The committee found that the condition of the storeroom was altered before government officials could properly inspect and seal the premises. The currency subsequently became unavailable.
The panel did not directly hold that Justice Varma himself removed the cash. Instead, it found the charge proved because material evidence was not secured or preserved and the evidentiary condition of the premises was disturbed before lawful inspection and sealing.
The committee also questioned what steps Justice Varma took after learning about the incident. It noted that his defence did not adequately explain what inquiries were made of household staff or other persons who had access to the premises, what information was obtained and what measures were taken to secure the scene.
The third charge concerned the explanations offered by Justice Varma regarding the discovery of the cash. The committee found that his responses lacked the candour and transparency expected from someone holding a constitutional position.
According to the report, Justice Varma initially denied knowledge of the cash and subsequently raised questions about its seizure, counting and removal. He also referred to the possible involvement of staff and suggested that the currency could have been planted or removed as part of a conspiracy. The committee noted, however, that these claims were not supported by concrete evidence or witnesses.
The panel therefore concluded that his explanations were evasive, incomplete and unsatisfactory when assessed against the statements of independent officials, photographs and other corroborative material.
While holding Justice Varma responsible on all three charges, the committee also highlighted shortcomings in the manner in which police and fire officials handled the scene.
The panel observed that officials reaching the premises had a responsibility to secure and preserve evidence. Their failure to seize, count and prepare an inventory of the currency created serious evidentiary difficulties and meant that the precise amount of cash could never be determined.
The findings are significant because the committee has simultaneously established the three charges while making clear that it has not directly held that the currency belonged personally to Justice Varma or that he physically removed it.
The report thus places the episode under a wider lens of judicial accountability, preservation of evidence and institutional responsibility. The committee’s findings are likely to have important implications for the further proceedings concerning Justice Varma and the standards expected from holders of high constitutional offices.
Leave Your Comment