A three-judge inquiry panel has held Justice Yashwant Varma responsible for misconduct after large amounts of cash were allegedly discovered at his official residence in Delhi following a fire on March 14.
The panel emphasized an “implied responsibility” on the part of public officials to maintain transparency and avoid circumstances that could arouse public suspicion.
The committee — comprising Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court), Justice G S Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court) — submitted its detailed 64-page report on May 4 to the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna.
The report was subsequently forwarded to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, prompting the Union government to begin proceedings for an impeachment motion, which is expected to be tabled during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament.
The panel was categorical in its findings: “The half-burnt currency notes recovered during firefighting operations were substantial in value and not of insignificant denominations. It is improbable they were kept in the residence’s storeroom without the knowledge or consent—explicit or implicit—of Justice Varma or his family.”
The report dismissed the possibility that the cash was planted, citing tight security at the judge’s residence, including a 1+4 static police guard and a Personal Security Officer (PSO) at the gate. It also noted that the house had several long-serving domestic staff and six staff quarters, making unauthorized entry or manipulation unlikely.
While the committee acknowledged lapses by the Delhi Police—particularly their failure to prepare a panchnama (official inventory) immediately after the fire—it clarified that probing the role of police or fire services was beyond its mandate.
“The inquiry’s scope does not extend to evaluating the procedural failures of the fire or police departments, even though their actions can be termed ‘slipshod, ’” the report stated.
The panel interviewed 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma and his daughter, as part of its fact-finding mission. However, it did not allow for cross-examination or legal representation, in line with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Additional District Judge vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh [(2015) 4 SCC 91].
The committee maintained that this was not a formal judicial inquiry, but a preliminary fact-finding exercise.
To ensure procedural fairness, all statements and evidence were shared with Justice Varma. Additionally, the panel video-recorded witness testimonies to safeguard against future disputes over the accuracy of the records.
In summary, the panel concluded that Justice Varma failed to uphold the standards expected of a sitting judge, citing the suspicious circumstances surrounding the fire and the presence of unaccounted cash, which could not be justified or dismissed as coincidental.