Justice Varma, After Resigning From Judgeship, also Withdraws from Parliament ‘Inquiry’

New Delhi: Allahabad high court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, from whose official residence a huge amount of cash was purportedly discovered after a fire, has not only resigned as a judge but has also withdrawn from the parliamentary inquiry against him.

The inquiry committee had been set up by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla after a notice of motion signed by more than 100 members of the Lower House, seeking to present an address to the President for the removal of Justice Varma, was moved. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court rejected Justice Varma's petition challenging Speaker Birla's decision to admit a motion for his removal

"I would be doing myself and the institution the greatest disservice by continuing to participate in the present proceedings, thereby
legitimising a process that calls upon me to answer the unanswerable – where did the money come from," Justice Varma wrote in the 13-page letter to the inquiry committee, sources said.

"I withdraw with the deepest sadness, conscious of the gravity of my decision and with the hope that history will one day record the unfairness with which a sitting High Court Judge was treated and that has marked this entire episode from its inception," he added at the end of the missive.

The letter enters into the details of the case and reflects Justice Varma's consistent claim that the money discovered in what was in early 2025 his official residence did not belong to him.

"During the Holi break of the High Court in 2025, my spouse and I travelled for a short vacation with friends on 12.03.2025. While we were at a remote location with limited mobile connectivity, a fire occurred in a storeroom located within the premises.

"Emergency services, including officers from the Delhi Fire Services and Delhi Police, attended the incident. Some of these officials recorded videos (which were released later) showing the discovery of what appeared be cash/ currency at the said storeroom.

Justice Varma noted that he was not aware of the photos and videos which were to be eventually shared with the public by the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.

"I learned about the occurrence of the fire only around 1:10/1:15 a.m. on 15.03.2025, by which time (as emerges from the record), the fire had not only been brought under control, these photos and videos had been recorded. I was not informed about the recording of these photos or videos, nor was I aware of the presence or discovery of such currency/cash. I returned to the premises in the evening of 15.03.2025.

"It was on 17.03.2025 that I was made aware of some of these photos/videos and was informed that the matter was under investigation. Shortly thereafter, these videos were published on the website of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and the entire episode was sensationally reported in the media with the clear narrative that the cash belonged to me."

Justice Varma noted that the "undisputed factual position" that he had "consistently set out from the very beginning is that the storeroom was a detached structure adjacent to the staff quarters, physically separated by boundary walls from the family living quarters and [his] office." He noted that it was unlocked, accessible through a back gate and by a host of staff.

"A CCTV camera was positioned directly facing the entry to the storeroom, with its live footage streaming to the guardroom and being recorded on equipment completely outside my control. The CRPF guards and my Personal Security Officers reported to persons other than myself, and thus, the entire security apparatus was never under my control. Despite repeated requests, this best evidence that could shed light on the entire incident has been kept away. My attempts at obtaining even a clone or copy of the same has consistently been declined.

Justice Varma also essayed that he had been subjected to a public vilification but that the proceedings did not treat him fairly.

"Despite the above, I suffered the public vilification in silence, remaining hopeful that those tasked by the law and the system to investigate and ascertain the facts would address the issue appropriately and fairly. Regrettably, the proceedings that have followed have been concerned almost exclusively with establishing the bare facts that a storeroom existed in the allotted premises and that cash was found there. From these two facts alone, inferences of my culpability appear to have been drawn."

His requests for a judicial audit to be conducted in order to ascertain whether the insinuations "could be considered even plausible" were also ignored, he wrote.

He stressed that his career of 13 years had seen no allegations of corruption or judicial impropriety against him.

The judge said that he was routinely kept out of the hearings of the in-house committee (IHC) of the Supreme Court, including not being allowed to listen to or cross-question witnesses.

He also highlighted concerns on the handling of material.

"What has also caused me great concern in these proceedings is the manner in which the IHC material was handled. Material that could be construed as adverse to me appears to have been taken from the IHC record and relied upon, while material favourable to me, including the statutory Fire Report, which contains no mention of any cash or currency and which shows the continued presence of officers at the site up to 1:56 a.m. (far beyond the time taken to douse the fire), was excluded without any explanation and I was not permitted to produce it in cross examination of the related witness. The exclusion of a contemporaneous official record to which the law attaches a strong presumption of authenticity, is difficult to reconcile with the quest for truth that such proceedings demand.

"Out of the 54 witnesses who had appeared before the IHC, 27 were dropped without any explanation being furnished. Many of those dropped were witnesses whose testimony was not unfavourable to me, and which would have provided a more complete picture of the events."

Justice Varma also commented on the nature of the case against him, noting that there is no foundational basis for it.

"In proceedings of this nature, which seek to determine whether a sitting Judge is guilty of misbehaviour warranting removal, it is incumbent upon those prosecuting the charges to first establish a foundational case through credible evidence. Only then can any burden shift to the Judge to lead defence evidence. Here, that threshold has not been crossed on any charge. The standard of proof, as noted by previous Judges’ Inquiry Committees, is akin to a criminal trial — beyond reasonable doubt. An examination of the record as it exists should have led to the proceedings being dropped at this stage rather than requiring me to lead evidence in defence."

Justice Verma noted that the charge against him rested on proof of two elements, the discovery of Indian currency in the storeroom, and that the storeroom formed part of “secured residential premises” under his occupation, control, charge, knowledge and accountability. He noted that no proof was ever produced that what was discovered by the Delhi Police and Delhi Fire Services Officers in the storeroom at the premises was genuine Indian currency.

"In relation to the second element of the charge, during the course of proceedings, the PSOs, who were expected to speak to the overall security arrangements and CCTV coverage at the premises, were dropped without explanation after I highlighted their false claims and sought their location data. No CCTV footage from the premises was produced. The conclusion in the CFSL Extraction Report, that data from the CCTV hard drive could not be accessed, is highly suspect. The DVR itself was never received for forensic examination, as admitted by the CFSL Expert during cross-examination. Yet, the only person who could have explained this aspect, i.e. Varinder Kalra (Secretary of the IHC), was also dropped as a witness.

"CRPF officers, bar one, were also dropped without explanation. Thus, the only witness examined on the aspect of the premises being “secure” was CG Rawat, a CRPF officer. He confirmed that security provided by CRPF at the premises was limited exclusively to the main entrance, that the back gate to the premises remained unmanned, that CRPF did not monitor the rest of the premises even with the use of CCTV footage, and that the storeroom was not viewable from the sentry post at the main gate.

"Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever that the premises were “secured”."

To the charge that after the fire was extinguished and before lawful inspection or sealing could take place, material objects and surroundings at the scene were altered or removed while the premises were under Justice Varma's control, and that he failed to ensure preservation of evidence and acquiesced in its disturbance, the judge said that evidence says otherwise.

"The evidence led is directly to the contrary and establishes that both the Delhi Fire Services and Delhi Police had independently decided not to report or seize the alleged cash well before I was even informed of the fire incident on 15.03.2025. No witness has attributed any instruction, interference, tampering or acquiescence to me or to any person acting at my behest. The decisions not to follow statutory procedure were taken by superior officers of the respective departments and communicated to their subordinates at the site. The very officers who could have explained these decisions were dropped immediately after cross-examination exposed this fact. The statutory Fire Report, which contains no mention of cash and reflects the continued presence of officers at the site for a considerable length of time even after the fire was doused, was excluded without any rationale. In these circumstances, there is simply no material to substantiate the allegations of alteration, removal or interference at my instance, and no basis to justify calling upon me to lead evidence to disprove an allegation that the prosecution itself has failed to substantiate even prima facie."

Justice Varma also attempted to refute the charge that his explanations were evasive.

"This charge alleges that, when called upon to explain the circumstances, I gave an “evasive explanation” and “denied” the presence of cash, which denial is contradicted by contemporaneous evidence of independent officials and photo/video records.

"A plain reading of my written response dated 22.03.2025 shows no denial of the discovery of cash. I stated only that the cash did not belong to me or my family members, that neither I nor my family had any knowledge of its presence, and that no one had reported seeing any cash after the first responders left the premises. That position has remained consistent throughout. No evidence has been led to demonstrate that my knowledge or involvement was different from what I stated. The charge evidently proceeds on a misreading of my letter.

"Framing a charge of evasiveness or misleading conduct on this basis, without any supporting material, and then expecting me to lead further evidence to defend it, defies logic and fairness."

Towards the end, Justice Varma highlighted his claim he was subjected to an unfair process.

"A rational and fair inquiry would have recognised the complete absence of a prima facie case and dropped the proceedings at this stage, rather than requiring me to prove multiple negatives and disprove unsubstantiated presumptions. Instead, the Committee has directed me to lead evidence in my defence.

"In these circumstances I am constrained to conclude that these proceedings too rest on the bare and undisputed facts that a storeroom existed within the allotted premises and that cash was allegedly found there. If that alone is considered sufficient for a finding of misbehaviour, the entire exercise of leading evidence was unnecessary. The burden of proof has been effectively reversed without any foundational case being made out.

"I cannot reconcile this state of affairs with any notion of fairness or due process."

He expressed profound disappointment that even after the pattern of selectively dropping witnesses became evident, the Committee took no steps to summon the dropped witnesses or intervene in the proceedings.

"Instead, it proceeded to require me to lead all evidence in my “defence” when no foundational case had been established. This course has left me with no choice but to withdraw."

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.