New Delhi, Aug 12: Justice Yashwant Varma has been found guilty by a panel constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker to probe allegations of discovery of cash at his official residence with the committee saying the charges of unexplained cash, disturbing evidence and evasive explanation against him “are proved”.
In view of this, the government may go ahead with the impeachment process against the judge in the Winter Session of Parliament, sources said.
In its report submitted in both houses of Parliament on Wednesday, the three-member committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act said the former Delhi High Court judge failed to furnish satisfactory explanation on the presence, source or ownership of cash found in the store room of his official residence.
The panel also said that material evidence was not secured or preserved and the evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before the lawful sealing and inspection.
It also found that the explanation by Justice Varma did not exhibit 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,” the panel said in its final report.
“The Committee therefore records its final findings that Articles of charges I, II and III are proved,” the probe panel said in its consolidated findings on the articles of charge against Justice Varma.
The panel said the “judge failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source or ownership” of the cash, hence article of the charge is proved.
On article two of the charge, it said material evidence was not secured or preserved; the evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before lawful sealing and inspection.
The panel said article three of the charge also stands proved as the explanation furnished by the judge and the subsequent stand taken, did not exhibit the candour, transparency and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances.
The committee highlighted that the later non-availability of the currency notes remains unexplained.
The scene was not preserved. The storeroom was not sealed. Cleaning activity occurred after the first responders had left.
Varma failed to enter the box and say so on oath and did not face cross-examination.
“Hence, adverse inference has to be drawn against him,” it underlined.
As nearly 200 MPs sought his removal by Parliament, he resigned.
If a judge of the Supreme Court or the high court resigns, it does not require approval of the president, officials said citing a Supreme Court judgement.
The president only gives a “formal acceptance” which is notified by the law ministry.
The removal proceedings against him have virtually become infructuous, but the law ministry is yet to notify his resignation and his name still figures as a judge on the website of the Allahabad High Court.
The sources aware of the development said the government is considering the impeachment process as it may want to set a precedent and send a message that a judge can’t escape from the removal process even if he or she resigns after “indulging” in serious irregularities.
They said when a high court or Supreme Court judge resigns, it is normally considered deemed to be accepted.
However, in case of Justice Varma, the resignation letter was sent only after the removal process in Parliament began hence his resignation has not yet been accepted, they added.
The report is in two volumes along with oral and documentary evidence recorded during the course of the investigation.
The three-member probe panel had submitted its findings to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in May.
A fire broke out in the official residence of Justice Varma on the night of March 14, 2025. Firefighters called to douse the blaze allegedly discovered massive amounts of burnt currency in a storeroom.
Two earlier moves by Parliament to remove judges did not fructify as they had resigned when their cases were being debated by Parliament following submission of probe panel reports.
After an in-house committee set up by the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna found evidences against him, Varma was repatriated to Allahabad High Court, his parent high court, from the Delhi High Court where he was serving when the fire incident took place. (PTI)
