Cash-at-home case against Justice Yashwant Varma:Parliamentary panel finds charges ‘proved’, judge ‘evasive’ in responses

A parliamentary committee probing allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma noted that the charges related to the recovery of cash from his official residence “are proved”. During the inquiry, the panel found the judge’s response regarding the unaccounted cash “evasive”. Justice Varma was questioned in the matter. It also highlighted the serious lapses in the preservation of evidence. According to the committee’s report, a substantial quantity of ₹500 notes was found in the storeroom of Justice Varma’s official residence at 30, Tughlak Crescent road, New Delhi. The judge could not provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the cash, source, or ownership. The committee, therefore, held the first charge “proved”. Now read the three charges against Justice Varma Charge 1: Large amount of unaccounted cash found at home The inquiry committee found bundles of ₹500 notes and partly burnt notes in the storeroom of Justice Varma’s official residence. Fire service and police personnel told the committee that the cash was not found in just one place but was spread across a large part of the storeroom. Delhi Fire Service employee Ankit Sehgal said he saw bundles of ₹500 notes spread across the storeroom up to a height of 7–8 feet. When police officer Roopchand was asked whether the cash was worth more than ₹5 lakh, he said that figure was far too low. However, the notes were not seized, counted or preserved as evidence. Because of this, the committee could not determine the exact amount of cash found there. Result: Charge proven. Charge 2: Evidence was tampered with after the fire The storeroom was not sealed immediately after the fire was put out. A security officer saw Justice Varma’s staff cleaning the room at around 3am. By morning, the burnt material had been removed, and the room had been cleaned. The notes found there were also not preserved and could not be found later. The committee said that important evidence was not properly preserved and was therefore tampered with. Result: Charge proven. Charge 3: Justice Varma’s responses were evasive and misleading Initially, Justice Varma said he did not know about the cash. Later, as part of his defence, he claimed that the cash was fake and had been placed there as part of a conspiracy. However, no FIR, complaint or solid evidence was presented to support these claims. Justice Varma also did not give evidence himself or present any members of his family or staff as witnesses. The committee found Justice Varma’s explanation incomplete, evasive and misleading in its effect. Result: Charge proven. Panel flags serious lapses in evidence preservation The committee also found serious lapses in the handling and preservation of physical evidence. It noted that the condition of the storeroom was altered before it was legally sealed and examined. The report also said there was no satisfactory explanation for some currency notes that were subsequently found to be missing or unavailable. However, it did not establish that Justice Varma himself had removed the missing notes. Committee finds judge’s responses evasive The panel also upheld the third charge concerning Justice Varma’s responses during the inquiry. It specifically referred to his March 22, 2025 response, describing it as “unsatisfactory and evasive”. The committee said his response lacked the institutional responsibility and clarity expected in the circumstances. The findings were based on statements from independent government witnesses and other evidence presented before the committee. The committee has submitted its final report, along with relevant documents, evidence and the record of proceedings, to the competent authority. Further action will be taken in accordance with the law.