Last Updated:
The controversy began on the night of March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Varma’s official residence and burnt currency notes were recovered during firefighting operations
Justice Yashwant Varma had resigned as Allahabad HC judge amid impeachment process over cash row
Parliamentary proceedings against former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma are likely to continue despite his resignation from the judiciary earlier this year, according to a report by The Indian Express.
A Union minister cited by the Express said Varma’s resignation would not bring the proceedings to an end because the motion seeking his removal had been admitted before he quit as a judge. Parliament would therefore still have to consider the findings of the inquiry and decide on matters relating to his perks and pension.
The issue has come back into focus after the three-member inquiry committee constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla submitted its report on May 18. The report was tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, nearly 17 months after burnt currency notes were found at Varma’s official residence in New Delhi following a fire.
ALSO READ | ‘No Signs Of Conspiracy’: Justice Yashwant Varma Committee Report Tabled In Lok Sabha
The committee found all three Articles of Charge against Varma proved.
What Is The Yashwant Varma Case?
The controversy began on the night of March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlaq Crescent in Delhi. During firefighting operations, substantial quantities of partly burnt currency notes were found in a storeroom on the premises. Varma was then serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
The discovery led to an in-house inquiry initiated by the Supreme Court. The inquiry committee subsequently found that Varma had “active or tacit control” over the storeroom where the cash was found. He was transferred to the Allahabad High Court in April 2025 but was not assigned judicial work.
How Did The Parliamentary Proceedings Begin?
The next stage came in Parliament.
ALSO READ | Justice Varma Had Already Resigned, Then Why Does ‘Guilty’ Verdict In Cash-At-Home Case Still Matter?
On July 21, 2025, 146 Lok Sabha MPs submitted a motion seeking Varma’s removal. Speaker Om Birla admitted the motion on August 12, 2025, and constituted a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The committee was headed by Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar and comprised Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Senior Advocate BV Acharya.
The committee continued its proceedings even after Varma resigned in April 2026 and submitted its report to the Speaker on May 18, 2026.
What Did The Committee Find?
The committee examined three Articles of Charge.
The first charge concerned the discovery of substantial unexplained Rs 500 currency notes at Varma’s official residence and his failure to provide a satisfactory explanation about their presence, source and ownership.
The second charge concerned the failure to preserve material evidence. The committee found that the scene was not adequately preserved after the fire and that the currency, which could have been crucial evidence, subsequently became unavailable. The committee did not need to conclude that Varma personally removed the cash to arrive at this finding.
The third charge concerned the explanations given by Varma. The committee found them evasive and misleading and said they did not satisfactorily account for the presence and subsequent disappearance of the cash.
The committee ultimately concluded that all three charges stood proved.
What Was Varma’s Stand?
Varma has denied knowledge of the cash.
In his response to then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Varma said he was unaware of any money or cash being kept in the outhouse storeroom. He also said neither he nor his family knew about the cash and rejected any suggestion that currency had been removed from the storeroom.
His defence also questioned the handling of the alleged cash recovery. He argued that police and fire officials who responded to the blaze had not officially seized the currency, prepared a seizure memo or created an inventory.
The parliamentary committee, however, found all three charges proved.
Why Does His Resignation Not End The Matter?
This is now the key constitutional and parliamentary question.
Varma resigned on April 9, 2026, while the parliamentary process against him was underway. Earlier, his resignation had been expected to bring the removal proceedings to an end. His resignation was widely seen as having brought the impeachment process to a dead end, although legal experts argued that tabling the inquiry report could still serve an important public-accountability purpose.
However, government sources have now told The Indian Express that the motion remains in force because it was initiated and admitted before Varma resigned.
A Union minister, speaking to the newspaper on condition of anonymity, said Parliament still has to take Varma’s conduct into account and decide on his perks and pension.
About the Author
Apoorva Misra is a News Editor at News18.com with a keen interest in politics and current affairs. She loves uncovering fresh angles and telling stories through long-form features and explainers. Foll…Read More
August 13, 2026, 07:40 IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
