Inside the Report: Judges Inquiry Committee finds Justice Yashwant Varma guilty on all counts in Cash-at-Residence case
The Judges Inquiry Committee’s Report tabled in Lok Sabha holds that unaccounted currency was found in a storeroom under Justice Varma’s control, that evidence was tampered with before it could be sealed, and that his explanations were evasive – findings that echo the Supreme Court’s In-House Committee’s conclusions before Varma resigned in April.
Published on: 12 August 2026, 12:30 pm
THE JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITTEE (‘JIC’) has indicted former Delhi High Court judge (originally from the Allahabad High Court) Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash by the Delhi Fire Service personnel on March 14, 2025 from an outhouse at his official residence during a firefighting operation.
The JIC, composed of the Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, the then Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya, has found Justice Varma guilty on all three counts, namely: that substantial unexplained ₹500 Indian currency notes were found in the storeroom; that the evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before the lawful sealing and inspection, and that the later non-availability of the currency notes remains unexplained. The JIC further noted that Justice Varma’s reply remains evasive and unsatisfactory and lacked candour and transparency.
The JIC report was tabled in the Lok Sabha today. The JIC was formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to investigate allegations of corruption against Justice Varma, who was later sent to the Allahabad High Court from the Delhi High Court purportedly as a disciplinary measure.
While the JIC was holding the inquiry, Justice Varma chose to resign on April 10 this year.
The JIC has found Justice Varma guilty on all three counts, namely: that substantial unexplained ₹500 Indian currency notes were found in the storeroom; that the evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before the lawful sealing and inspection, and that the later non-availability of the currency notes remains unexplained.
What the JIC found on all charges
The first charge against Justice Varma alleged that, on or about the intervening night of March 14-15, 2025, substantial undeclared Indian currency notes were found in the storeroom within the secured residential premises under the occupation and control of Justice Varma; that he failed to disclose or explain the lawful source or ownership of such currency notes; and that such possession and non-disclosure, being within the official premises under his charge, control, knowledge and accountability, was inconsistent with the standards of probity, integrity and rectitude expected of a judge of the higher judiciary.
On this charge, the JIC found:
Several official witnesses from the Delhi Fire Services and Delhi Police, who reached the premises in the discharge of official duty, spoke about the presence of burnt, half-burnt, wet or scattered ₹500 denomination currency notes inside the storeroom. Their evidence is not solitary; it is mutually corroborative.
It is also supported, in material particulars, by the electronic and photographic record identified during the inquiry.
It is not possible to determine the exact amount of currency found inside the storeroom because the currency notes were not seized. However, the absence of exact quantification does not dilute the core finding that the currency notes present in the storeroom were huge and substantial. The evidence is not of a few stray notes or isolated remnants. It is of bundles, heaps and stacks of ₹500 denomination Indian currency notes seen in burnt, half-burnt, wet and scattered condition within the storeroom.
The oral evidence, read with the videos and photographs, establishes that the quantity of burnt and semi-burnt currency notes was substantial, conspicuous and far beyond a stray or negligible presence.
On the failure to seize the currency notes, the JIC opined that it was not done under certain apprehensions and under the impression that an official complaint would be made, as the scene of occurrence was within the official bungalow of a sitting judge.
With regard to the defence set up by Justice Varma that the storeroom was detached from the main living area, was near the staff/security quarters, was used for storage of old household articles, and was accessible to staff, CPWD personnel and others, the JIC found it to be untenable. The JIC found that the storeroom was not outside the official compound of the judge. It was not under the independent occupation of a stranger. It was under Justice Varma’s control and possession.
The JIC also observed that the plea of shared access does not answer the charge. Access by servants, security personnel, gardeners, maintenance staff or CPWD personnel for limited purposes may bear upon the question whether the judge had exclusive physical custody of the storeroom. It does not, JIC said, convert a storeroom within the official residence of a Judge into an unregulated public space. Nor does it explain how substantial currency notes came to be present therein.