The three-member Inquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 has found all three Articles of Charge against Justice Yashwant Varma proved, concluding that substantial unexplained ?500-denomination currency notes were found in the storeroom forming part of his official residential premises, material evidence was not preserved after the fire, and the explanations subsequently furnished by him were evasive, incomplete and misleading.
The Committee, comprising Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Senior Advocate B.V. Acharya, examined the circumstances surrounding the fire at the then Delhi High Court Judge’s official residence at 30, Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi, during the intervening night of March 14-15, 2025. The Committee’s report records that officials who reached the premises after the fire found burnt, half-burnt and wet ?500 currency notes inside the storeroom, with photographic and electronic material also forming part of the evidence.
I: Unexplained Currency In Official Premises
On the first charge, the Committee found that substantial currency notes were present in the storeroom and that the storeroom formed part of the Judge’s official residential establishment and remained under his effective control.
The Committee noted that several Delhi Fire Services and Delhi Police officials independently spoke about bundles, heaps and stacks of ?500 notes in burnt, half-burnt, wet and scattered condition. The Committee stressed that the evidence did not concern “a few stray notes or isolated remnants” but substantial quantities of currency.
One witness described the amount as beyond what an ordinary person could imagine. The report records his testimony:
“
“I state that the money found at the place of fire was unimaginable and an ordinary person like me could not have thought of it in dreams also. The amount of five lakhs is too small. When the fire was doused and being cleared, the bundles of five hundred currency notes were found all over.”
The Committee rejected the defence that the storeroom was outside the Judge’s control merely because it was detached from the main living area and could be accessed by staff or maintenance personnel. It held that the room was within the official residential premises, and that shared access did not eliminate the Judge’s institutional control or responsibility over the premises.
The Committee clarified that it was not finding direct personal ownership of the currency in the criminal-law sense. Instead, the finding rested on the presence of substantial unexplained currency within the official premises and the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation concerning its presence, source or ownership.
“
“The Committee does not infer from this circumstance that the currency notes belonged to the Judge. Nor does it treat the existence of a locked liquor cabinet as proof of possession of currency notes. Its relevance is narrower but significant. It answers the defence that the room was outside the Judge’s knowledge, use or effective control. If the room was sufficiently connected with the Judge’s establishment to keep a locked personal cabinet, the plea that the Judge had no effective control over the room cannot be accepted in the broad manner in which it is advanced.
The plea of shared access, therefore, cannot be elevated into a plea of absence of control. At the highest, it shows that others may also have had access to the room. The other persons if any, could have accessed the storeroom only under his command. It does not also show that the Judge had no access, no use, no knowledge of the room, or no institutional responsibility over it. The defence based on lack of control is accordingly rejected.”
The Committee ultimately held: “The charge under Article I is therefore proved.”
II: Failure To Preserve Material Evidence
The second charge concerned the failure to secure and preserve the scene and material evidence following the fire.
The Committee accepted that Justice Varma was not physically present when the fire broke out and when the first responders arrived. However, it found that the subsequent handling of the storeroom and the currency notes raised serious concerns. The report records that the storeroom was not immediately sealed, cleaning activity took place after the first responders had left, and the currency notes subsequently became unavailable.
The Committee particularly relied on evidence that members of the Judge’s household establishment were present near the storeroom and engaged in cleaning after the fire. It concluded that, once substantial currency had been seen at the scene, the material should have been preserved rather than treated as ordinary fire debris.
The Committee made an important qualification: it did not find that Justice Varma personally removed the currency notes. Instead, the charge was proved on the basis of failure to preserve the evidence, acquiescence in disturbance of the scene through persons associated with the Judge’s establishment, and the resulting loss of material evidence.
“
“The Committee therefore records that Article II is proved, though the finding is framed with precision. What stands proved is failure to secure and preserve material evidence, disturbance and alteration of the evidentiary condition of the storeroom before lawful sealing and inspection, and unexplained non-availability of the material thereafter. The Committee does not rest its finding on direct proof that the Judge personally removed the currency notes. It rests upon failure to preserve, acquiescence in disturbance of the scene through the establishment under his authority, and the resulting loss of material evidence.”
III: Evasive And Misleading Explanations
The third charge related to the explanations furnished by Justice Varma after the incident.
The Committee examined his initial response, subsequent statements and the defence advanced during the inquiry. It found that the earliest response was a broad denial of knowledge of the cash, its presence, source and removal, while later stages of the defence introduced alternative theories including non-seizure, possible planting, involvement of staff and removal by first responders.
The Committee said that these alternative theories were not substantiated by evidence. It also noted that, despite raising allegations of conspiracy, planting and possible involvement of staff or first responders, the Judge did not lead defence evidence to establish them.
It explained that the response was evasive because it did not engage with the central circumstance of substantial currency being seen by independent officials; incomplete because it did not disclose factual steps allegedly taken to ascertain what happened or preserve the scene; and misleading in effect because the initial broad denial was followed by successive alternative hypotheses which were never substantiated. The Committee observed:
“
“The Committee therefore finds that the explanation furnished by the Judge was evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect. It was evasive because it did not engage with the central circumstance of substantial currency notes seen by independent officials inside the storeroom. It was incomplete because it did not disclose the factual steps allegedly taken by him, the details of inquiries made, the answers received from staff or household members, or any action taken to preserve the site or complain of foul play. It was misleading in effect because the earliest broad denial gave way to successive alternative hypotheses, none of which was substantiated when opportunity to lead defence evidence was available. Article III is accordingly proved.”
All Three Articles of Charge Proved
In its consolidated findings, the Committee held that:
● Article I was proved; substantial unexplained ?500 currency notes were found in the storeroom within the official residential premises and no satisfactory explanation was furnished regarding their presence, source or ownership.
● Article II was proved; material evidence was not secured or preserved, the evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before lawful sealing and inspection, and the subsequent disappearance/non-availability of the currency remained unexplained.
● Article III was proved; the explanations furnished by Justice Varma did not demonstrate the candour, transparency and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances and remained evasive and unsatisfactory when tested against the evidence.
The Committee therefore recorded its final finding that Articles of Charge I, II and III are proved, and submitted the report along with the record of proceedings, documents, exhibits and other material for such further action as may be considered in accordance with law.
Background of the Inquiry
The inquiry arose after the March 2025 fire at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence. Following the discovery of currency at the premises, an in-house inquiry was conducted, after which the Speaker of the Lok Sabha admitted a motion seeking his removal and constituted the statutory three-member Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.