Justice Varma probe: ‘Charge proved’ with no finding of ownership

The panel expressly said it was not inferring that the currency notes belonged to Justice Yashwant Varma

A three-member parliamentary inquiry panel probing allegations against Allahabad high court judge justice Yashwant Varma has found all three articles of charge against him proved.

PTI photo

The inquiry committee’s finding on the first article of charge, relating to the discovery and possession of unexplained Indian currency within the official premises, is significant for the distinction it draws between physical ownership of the cash and institutional control and accountability for the premises.

The panel expressly said it was not inferring that the currency notes belonged to Justice Yashwant Varma, nor was it treating the existence of a locked liquor cabinet in the storeroom as proof that he possessed the cash.

But it rejected his claim that the storeroom was outside his control.

The committee noted that Justice Varma himself had stated that a liquor cabinet containing personal articles was kept locked in the storeroom. The panel said this materially weakened his contention that the room was an open, uncontrolled space over which he had no effective control.

“A locked cabinet containing personal articles is not ordinarily maintained in a space which is wholly unregulated, wholly outside the knowledge of the occupant, or wholly beyond his effective control,” the report said.

The committee said that shared access to the storeroom could not be equated with absence of control, pointing out that the room formed part of the judge’s official residential premises and was sufficiently connected with his establishment.

“The charge under Article I is therefore proved,” the committee concluded, citing the presence of substantial currency notes within the official premises, effective control over the premises, absence of a satisfactory explanation and failure to account for the source or ownership of the currency.

Notably, the committee clarified that Justice Varma’s absence from the residence when the fire occurred and his plea of non-ownership did not displace the charge.

Defence of conspiracy found unsubstantiated

The committee also rejected Justice Varma’s suggestion that the currency could have been planted as part of a conspiracy to malign him.

It noted that no person had been identified as having planted the cash, no occasion of entry had been established and no material had been produced to demonstrate how such substantial currency could have been brought into the premises without detection. “The plea remains at the level of possibility,” it underlined.

At the same time, the committee was careful not to convert that rejection into a finding of criminal ownership. It said it was not recording a finding of direct personal ownership of the currency notes in the criminal sense, and that such a finding was not necessary for determining the charge under the parliamentary inquiry.

‘Serious lapse’ in preserving evidence

The second article of charge related to the alleged failure to preserve the scene and material evidence after the fire. Here too, the committee found the charge proved.

The panel recorded that currency was seen by several officials but was not preserved; the storeroom was not immediately sealed; cleaning activity took place after the first responders had left; and the currency subsequently became unavailable.

It rejected the defence that there was no direct evidence showing Justice Varma himself physically removed the notes. The committee said that the charge did not depend on proof that the judge personally carried away any material object.

It encompassed his failure to preserve evidence and his acquiescence in disturbance or removal of material evidence from premises under his institutional charge.

The report placed particular significance on the conduct of people attached to Justice Varma’s establishment. Evidence of a witness, CG Rawat, placed Justice Varma’s private secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and household staff member Mohd Rahil near the storeroom after the fire had been extinguished, with the two allegedly engaged in cleaning work.

The committee said that this did not by itself establish physical removal of the currency by any named individual. But it found that the circumstance was directly relevant to the question of preservation of evidence and Justice Varma’s institutional responsibility.

The panel also noted that Justice Varma was in contact with his daughter, Karki and Rahil during the night of the incident, yet did not state that he had directed anyone to preserve the currency, secure the site, seek seizure or preparation of an inventory, or insist on a police report.

“His whole defence is false and adds to grave suspicion against him,” the committee observed in its consideration of the failure to preserve evidence.

The committee ultimately found Article II proved, while specifically clarifying that it was not resting the finding on direct proof that Justice Varma personally removed the currency notes.

Rather, it relied on his failure to preserve the evidence, acquiescence in disturbance of the scene through persons attached to his establishment and the consequent loss of material evidence.

Adverse inference from Justice Varma not entering witness box

The third and perhaps most damaging finding concerns the manner in which Justice Varma explained the incident. The committee said that the issue was not whether a statement could attract criminal liability for being false, but whether the explanation offered by a constitutional functionary met the standard of “candour, transparency and responsibility” expected of him.

The panel pointed out that the questions put to Justice Varma by the then Chief Justice of India were direct: how he accounted for the presence of cash in the room, what its source was and who removed the burnt currency. Yet his initial response, according to the report, was a broad denial of knowledge, placement, presence after the fire, source and removal.

The committee noted that Justice Varma subsequently adopted a more elaborate defence centred on non-seizure of the currency, absence of quantification, deficiencies in electronic evidence, conduct of first responders, conspiracy, planting and possible involvement of staff.

While acknowledging that expansion of a defence could be part of legal strategy, the panel said it could not substitute for a candid factual explanation.

A particularly adverse finding arose from Justice Varma’s decision not to enter the witness box and his withdrawal from the proceedings on April 9.

The committee said that although he was entitled to deny ownership and lack of knowledge, he did not enter the witness box to state this on oath and face cross-examination. It consequently drew an adverse inference against him.

The panel also noted that Justice Varma had participated in the proceedings until the completion of the evidence supporting the charges and had sought time to produce evidence in his defence, but subsequently withdrew from the proceedings and made it clear that he would not participate further.

The committee said he had thereby failed to cooperate with its proceedings.

‘Earliest answer’ and subsequent defence did not match

The committee found particular significance in the evolution of Justice Varma’s explanation. His first response of March 22, 2025, it said, did not merely deny ownership. It stated that he was unaware of any cash in the storeroom, that neither he nor his family knew about it, that no cash had been seen by family members or staff after the fire and that neither he nor his staff had removed any article or currency.

His subsequent defence, however, shifted towards questioning the failure of authorities to seize, quantify and preserve the material, besides raising allegations of planting, conspiracy and possible involvement of staff. The committee described this progression as material, saying the later defence could not substitute for a candid factual explanation. It also found that Justice Varma had failed to substantiate the allegations of conspiracy or planting.

In its consolidated conclusion, the committee held that Articles I, II and III stood proved.

The findings therefore go beyond the earlier in-house inquiry, which led then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to advise Justice Varma to resign or seek voluntary retirement. Justice Varma had declined to do so.

CJI Khanna subsequently forwarded the in-house committee report, along with Justice Varma’s response, to the President and Prime Minister, paving the way for the constitutional removal process.

Justice Varma had challenged the in-house report and its forwarding before the Supreme Court, but his writ petition was dismissed on August 7, 2025.

Parliamentary removal proceedings followed after notices for his removal were submitted in July 2025. The Lok Sabha admitted the motion and constituted the statutory inquiry committee. Justice Varma, however, resigned from judicial office in April while the parliamentary proceedings were still underway.