Judges Inquiry Committee submits report on Justice Yashwant Varma to Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla

NEW DELHI: The Judges Inquiry Committee, investigating allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, has submitted its report to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in Parliament House on Monday.

The report, which was presented in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, will be laid before both Houses of Parliament in due course, according to the Lok Sabha Secretariat. The Committee was constituted by the Speaker on August 12, 2025.

The development comes amid escalating controversy surrounding Justice Varma, who has since resigned from his position as a judge of the Allahabad High Court. In his resignation letter dated April 9, addressed to the President of India, he stepped down “with immediate effect,” expressing deep anguish but not elaborating on the reasons.

Presiding Officer of Judges Inquiry Committee Justice Aravind Kumar, Supreme Court of India, along with Justice Chandrashekhar, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, and B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate, Karnataka High Court, presented the Report of Judges Inquiry Committee to Om… pic.twitter.com/GB5Cz40gan

— ANI (@ANI) May 18, 2026

Earlier, Om Birla reconstituted this three-member inquiry committee tasked with examining the grounds for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma. The reconstituted panel came into effect from March 6, 2026, according to an official Lok Sabha notification. The committee was originally constituted in March last year following demands for Justice Varma’s removal after bundles of burnt cash were allegedly discovered at his residence, triggering widespread concern and calls for an inquiry.

Last month, Justice Yashwant Varma strongly contested the allegations arising from the cash recovery controversy, terming the ongoing inquiry “unfair, one-sided and based on presumptions”, while asserting that no evidence establishes any link between him and the alleged cash found at his official residence.

In a detailed 13-page representation submitted before the in-house inquiry committee, Justice Varma denied ownership, possession, or knowledge of the cash allegedly discovered in a storeroom within his allotted government premises. He maintained that the proceedings against him were built on “unsupported insinuations” and failed to meet even the basic threshold required to establish misconduct.

Recounting the incident, the judge stated that a fire broke out in the storeroom on March 12, 2025, while he and his spouse were away on a pre-planned vacation in a remote area with limited connectivity. He said he was informed of the incident only after the fire had been brought under control and had no prior knowledge of any alleged recovery of cash at the site.

Justice Varma explained that the storeroom was used for keeping unused household items and was accessible to multiple individuals, including domestic staff and maintenance personnel. He emphasised that the overall security of the premises, including CCTV monitoring and deployment of CRPF personnel, was not under his direct control, making it untenable to attribute possession of any recovered material to him.

Raising serious objections to the manner of inquiry, the judge alleged selective reliance on evidence and exclusion of material favourable to him. He pointed out that several key witnesses, including police officials and security personnel, were either not examined in his presence or were subsequently dropped without any explanation.

He also noted that attempts to obtain CCTV footage and related records were unsuccessful, thereby weakening the evidentiary basis of the case.

The representation further questions the handling of documentary evidence, stating that while material adverse to him was relied upon, important records such as the statutory fire report, which could have provided crucial context, were ignored. Justice Varma argued that even the foundational claim that the recovered cash was genuine and attributable to him had not been substantiated.

A key grievance raised in the letter is the alleged reversal of the burden of proof. The judge contended that he was being compelled to disprove allegations without the inquiry first establishing a prima facie case, a process he described as contrary to settled legal principles and fairness.

Addressing specific charges, Justice Varma stated that no evidence had been led to demonstrate that the premises were securely under his control or that he had any role in the alleged tampering of evidence after the fire. He also rejected accusations of giving evasive responses, asserting that he had consistently denied any connection with the cash.

Expressing “deep pain and anguish,” the judge said he had faced sustained public vilification despite the absence of credible material against him. He criticised the proceedings as being driven by a predetermined narrative rather than an objective evaluation of facts.

Significantly, Justice Varma stated that he found it untenable to continue participating in the proceedings under such circumstances, adding that continuing would amount to legitimising a process that calls upon him to answer “the unanswerable” without a foundational case being established.

Justice Varma had earlier been transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court following the controversy linked to the alleged recovery of cash at his official residence. He took the oath at Allahabad on April 5, 2025. (ANI)