Justice Yashwant Varma has been found guilty on all three charges linked to the discovery of a large quantity of cash at his official residence in New Delhi.

A three-member inquiry committee constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla examined the allegations and concluded that Justice Varma failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source and ownership of the cash found at his residence.

The case relates to a fire that broke out in the storeroom of Justice Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlaq Crescent in Delhi during the night of March 14-15, 2025.

Firefighters and police officials who reached the premises reportedly found a large number of burnt, partially burnt, wet and scattered Rs 500 currency notes inside the storeroom.

Cash Found at Official Residence

According to the committee, the notes were not seized, counted or properly inventoried at the scene. Because of this, the exact amount of cash could not be established.

However, the panel said available photographs, videos and statements from officials provided sufficient evidence that a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes was present inside the storeroom.

The committee did not conclude that the money personally belonged to Justice Varma. However, it found that the presence of a large amount of unexplained cash on premises under his control, combined with the absence of a satisfactory explanation, established the first charge.

Justice Varma’s Explanation Rejected

Justice Varma reportedly argued that he was not present at the residence and that other people had access to the premises.

He also suggested that the cash could have been placed there by someone as part of a conspiracy.

The committee rejected these explanations, saying there was no concrete evidence identifying anyone responsible for placing the currency in the storeroom.

The panel also noted that there was no established timeline or evidence explaining how such a large amount of cash could have been brought into the premises without being noticed.

Evidence Preservation Lapse

The second charge concerned the handling and preservation of evidence after the fire.

According to the committee, the condition of the storeroom was altered before government officials could properly inspect and seal the premises. The currency that had reportedly been found at the location subsequently became unavailable.

The committee did not directly conclude that Justice Varma personally removed the notes.

Instead, it found the charge proved because material evidence was not secured or preserved and the condition of the storeroom was disturbed before lawful inspection and sealing.

The panel also said Justice Varma’s response did not adequately explain what steps he took following the incident, including whether he questioned household staff or other people who had access to the premises.

Read more: PM Modi to Visit UAE on Official Trip to Strengthen Ties

Committee Questions Justice Varma’s Statements

The third charge related to Justice Varma’s explanations about the cash and the events surrounding its discovery.

According to the committee, Justice Varma initially denied knowledge of the money but later raised questions concerning the seizure, counting and removal of the currency.

He also referred to the possible involvement of staff and suggested that the cash may have been placed or removed from the storeroom.

The panel said no concrete evidence or witnesses were produced to support these claims.

It concluded that his explanations were evasive, incomplete and inconsistent with the evidence provided by independent officials and other material examined during the inquiry.

Fire and Police Officials Also Face Questions

The inquiry committee also flagged serious lapses in the handling of the scene by fire and police officials.

Officials who reached the residence were expected to secure and preserve evidence in accordance with established procedures. However, the failure to seize, count and properly preserve the currency was described as a serious lapse.

The committee said these shortcomings affected the ability to determine the exact quantity of cash and preserve important evidence connected with the case.

What the Panel Concluded

The central finding of the inquiry is that all three charges against Justice Yashwant Varma were proved.

At the same time, the committee clarified that it did not make a direct finding that the currency personally belonged to Justice Varma or that he personally removed the notes from the storeroom.

The findings now place the case in the wider context of judicial accountability and the procedures governing allegations against judges holding constitutional positions.