E-Paper
No proof of cash found in house, justice Varma tells Lok Sabha committee
The judge’s response focussed entirely on factual assertions at this stage, while also apprising the committee that his challenge to the very constitution of the inquiry panel was pending before the Supreme Court
Allahabad high court judge justice Yashwant Varma, who is facing impeachment proceedings following reports of unaccounted cash found at his official residence in Delhi last year, told an inquiry panel set up by the Lok Sabha that he could not be condemned on the basis of a “reverse burden of proof” when there was no prima facie evidence to establish either the recovery or seizure of any currency, according to people aware of the matter.
In his response submitted to the Lok Sabha-appointed inquiry committee on January 12, justice Varma strongly disputed the factual foundation of the allegations against him, asserting that no cash was ever recovered from his residence, either in his presence or in the presence of his family members, and that no contemporaneous record or memo documenting the existence, quantity or seizure of currency was ever prepared.
The judge’s response focussed entirely on factual assertions at this stage, while also apprising the committee that his challenge to the very constitution of the inquiry panel was pending before the Supreme Court. No legal grounds against the constitution of the committee were raised in his response for now, people familiar with the submission said.
Justice Varma emphasised that he was not present at his official residence when the fire occurred in March 2025 and that the entire episode took place during his absence from the premises for more than two days, while he was at a remote location in Madhya Pradesh. He also underlined that he was not the first responder at the site and had no role in any alleged discovery of cash, the people cited above said.
According to the response, fire officials and Delhi police personnel were the first to reach the premises. Justice Varma contended that the site was neither secured nor cordoned off before the fire and police personnel exited, and that there was no evidence on record to establish the condition in which the room was left when they departed, the people cited above said.
The judge further stated that there was zero evidence to show either the presence or the quantum of cash or currency at the site. No official document, he argued, recorded the recovery of any money, nor did the reports made available to him disclose, even by approximation, the amount of currency allegedly found. Till date, he said, no evidence has been gathered or shared that could lend credence to the allegation that sacks or bags of cash were present in the room.
Justice Varma also drew attention to the location of the outhouse where the half-burnt currency notes were allegedly discovered. The outhouse, he asserted, abuts and is adjacent to CRPF barracks and staff quarters and clearly separated from the residential portion of the premises occupied by him and his family by a boundary wall. The structure, he claimed, was open and accessible by all, and not part of his bungalow, according to the people cited earlier.
The response also flagged that the entire premises, including the entry to the storeroom, was under constant CCTV surveillance by CRPF personnel, but no footage was brought to his knowledge to establish the presence of any bags or sacks of currency. Justice Varma said the absence of CCTV evidence further undermined the allegations against him.
The impeachment proceedings against justice Varma arise from the alleged discovery of wads of currency notes at his official residence in Delhi following a fire in March 2025, when he was serving as a judge of the Delhi high court. A Supreme Court in-house inquiry panel subsequently found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action to the Prime Minister and the President.
Subsequently, motions seeking the judge’s removal were moved in both Houses of Parliament in July. While the Rajya Sabha motion was not admitted, the Lok Sabha speaker admitted the motion on August 12 and constituted a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The committee comprises Supreme Court’s justice Aravind Kumar, Madras high court’s chief justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, and senior advocate BV Acharya. Justice Varma has been asked to appear before the panel on January 24.
Even as the parliamentary process moves ahead, a core legal issue remains under scrutiny before the Supreme Court. Last week, the apex court reserved its judgment on justice Varma’s petition challenging the Lok Sabha speaker’s decision to admit the motion and constitute the inquiry committee.
Justice Varma argued before the Supreme Court that the procedure adopted under the 1968 Act was flawed, contending that when removal motions are moved in both Houses on the same day, a joint committee is required to be constituted. The Lok Sabha secretariat countered this by submitting that the Rajya Sabha motion was never admitted, and hence, the speaker was competent to proceed independently.
During the hearing on January 8, the court observed that it was required to balance the rights of a judge facing removal proceedings with the will of elected representatives who had moved the motion. The court declined to interfere with the inquiry process or grant justice Varma additional time to respond to the committee’s notice.
