Here is a breakdown of what the committee found, the evidence it relied upon, and what this means for the removal process.
What were the charges against the judge?
The committee framed three specific “articles of charge” against Justice Varma.
The first charge related to the discovery and possession of “substantial unexplained Rs 500 denomination currency notes” in a storeroom at his official residence, and his failure to explain their lawful source.
The second charge accused him of failing to preserve material evidence and causing interference with it, leading to the unexplained disappearance of the burnt currency notes before they could be lawfully seized.
The third charge stated that he furnished “evasive and misleading explanations” that lacked the candour and transparency expected of a constitutional functionary.
The committee found all three charges to be proved.
How did the panel establish the presence of the cash?
A central pillar of Justice Varma’s defence was that the police and fire officials who responded to the fire never officially seized any currency, nor did they prepare a seizure memo or an inventory. He argued that without physical verification, it could not be conclusively determined if the material was genuine Indian currency.
The committee acknowledged that the failure of the first responders to seize the notes was a “serious lapse”. However, it noted that the incident occurred at the official residence of a sitting High Court judge, which created an apprehension among subordinate police and fire officials.
This lapse, the report stated, did not displace the “overwhelming evidence” pointing to the presence of the cash. The committee relied on the mutually corroborative testimony of eight security officials who witnessed the scene: four fire-service personnel, three Delhi Police personnel and a Central Reserve Police Force witness.
The witnesses described seeing “bundles”, “heaps” and “stacks” of Rs 500 notes in burnt, half-burnt, and wet conditions scattered across the storeroom floor and on a ledge. One fire operator testified that he had “never seen such an incident in his firefighting career,” while a police head constable remarked that the amount of money was “unimaginable” and “much more than five lakhs”.
This was corroborated by electronic records, including photographs and videos taken by the responders on their mobile phones, which were examined by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, while noting that the electronic material was not an exhaustive record of everything captured at the premises.
The committee concluded that the quantity of currency was “substantial, conspicuous and far beyond a stray or negligible presence”, even though it did not determine the exact amount of cash since the failure to seize, count or inventory the notes made precise quantification impossible.
Why was he held responsible for the disappearance of the notes?
While the committee found no direct proof that Justice Varma personally removed the currency notes, it held him responsible for their disappearance based on “circumstantial evidences leading to the conclusion that the Judge caused interference with the material evidence and that the Judge did not take any step to secure or preserve the material evidence while the premises was under his control”.
According to the report, after the fire was extinguished and the first responders left, Justice Varma’s private secretary and personal attendant were seen cleaning the storeroom and removing debris. A security guard saw them near the storeroom after the fire had been extinguished and later saw them continuing to clean it. According to the report, when the guard offered to help, the attendant told him to return to his duty at the gate.
Call detail records showed that Justice Varma, who was out of town at the time, was in telephonic contact with his secretary and attendant during the intervening night.
“It is reasonable to infer that their activities were under instructions of the Judge,” the report noted. The committee observed that Justice Varma took no steps to secure the room, preserve the evidence or lodge a police complaint about the cash. Instead, the cleaning activity resulted in the “unexplained non-availability” of the burnt notes, which the panel termed a “dereliction of duty”.
How did the committee view Justice Varma’s defence?
Justice Varma consistently denied ownership or knowledge of the cash. He argued that the storeroom was detached from his main living area, was accessible to staff and maintenance personnel and was not under his exclusive control. He later alleged a conspiracy against him as part of which fake currency had been planted in the storeroom along with the possibility that the first responders themselves stole the money.
The committee rejected these arguments. It pointed out that the judge kept a “locked liquor cabinet” in that very storeroom. “A locked cabinet containing personal articles is not ordinarily maintained in a space which is wholly unregulated… or wholly beyond his effective control,” the report observed, dismissing his contention of shared access.
The panel also noted that Justice Varma failed to provide any evidence to support his theories of a conspiracy or theft by officials. This is because in April, when the proceedings before the committee reached the stage for him to present defence witnesses, Justice Varma withdrew from the inquiry and did not participate further, alleging procedural unfairness.
The committee rejected the suggestion that the inquiry had denied him an opportunity to defend himself, pointing to the supply of all evidence to him, the hearing of all applications and objections by him, the opportunity to cross-examine the nine witnesses and the grant of additional time for defence evidence.
The committee said the withdrawal did not by itself prove any charge but left the factual allegations raised by him unsupported. It added that his defence remained “at the level of possibility” and his explanations were ultimately “evasive, incomplete and misleading.”
What happens next?
Justice Varma already tendered his resignation to the President in April this year. The resignation of a High Court judge becomes effective on the date the letter of resignation is addressed to the President, without the need for it to be accepted by the President.
Historically, the resignation of a judge facing an inquiry — such as in the cases of Justices P.D. Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen in 2011 — has led to the lapsing of the impeachment motion, as the primary objective of removing the judge from office is rendered moot.
However, the report’s tabling now raises a constitutional question: can Parliament proceed with a removal motion against a judge who has already resigned?
According to jurist G Mohan Gopal, who served as a member of the Parliamentary inquiry panel set up to probe Justice Dinakaran, impeachment is not possible since “a motion for his removal from an office he does not any longer hold cannot be considered by Parliament”. He said, “Strictly speaking, as under the Act the inquiry report is to be discussed by Parliament along with the motion, the report also cannot be discussed by Parliament. In short, the matter ends here.”
“If this situation is not satisfactory, Parliament must amend the Judges’ Inquiry Act suitably to apply to future cases,” he added.
However, the findings of the report, said Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, could be used to “enable a prosecution that could be launched” against Justice Varma, since he doesn’t have protections from prosecutions that are afforded to judges after his resignation in April. She clarified, though, that the Parliamentary inquiry against Justice Varma was not equivalent to a criminal trial, nor did the committee find him guilty of personally owning the money.
Former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. Photo: File 
Share
