Charges proved against Justice Yashwant Verma in cash-at-home case: Probe panel
A inquiry committee has found all three charges against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma proved, concluding that substantial unexplained cash was found
A inquiry committee has found all three charges against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma proved, concluding that substantial unexplained cash was found at his official residence, material evidence was not properly preserved and his explanations about the episode were evasive and unsatisfactory. The findings relate to cash discovered in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlak Crescent in Delhi after a fire on March 14, 2025. Read Full Story The panel, however, stopped short of concluding that Justice Varma personally owned the money in the criminal-law sense. Its finding was that substantial unexplained currency was found on premises under his control and that he failed to satisfactorily explain its presence, source or ownership. WHAT DID THE INQUIRY FIND? The committee, constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, examined three formal charges against Justice Varma, essentially the specific allegations framed for investigation. Unexplained cash at official residence The committee found that a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes was present in the storeroom after the fire. According to the report, the evidence pointed to bundles, heaps and stacks of currency rather than a few stray notes. The panel said Justice Varma could not satisfactorily explain where the cash came from, who owned it or why it was present there. It also rejected his contention that the storeroom was completely outside his control, holding that it formed part of his official residential premises and remained under his institutional control. Failure to preserve evidence The second charge concerned what happened at the scene after the fire.
The committee found that the storeroom was not immediately sealed and that cleaning took place after first responders had left. By the time a formal inspection was carried out, the currency was no longer available. It concluded that material evidence had not been properly secured or preserved. The panel referred to the presence of Justice Varma’s Private Secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and household staff member Mohd Rahil near the storeroom during the cleaning process. However, it did not conclude that Justice Varma himself had removed the currency. Evasive and unsatisfactory explanations The panel also found Justice Varma’s explanations inadequate, saying they failed to sufficiently address key questions about the presence, source and ownership of the cash and the steps taken after the fire. It described his responses as “evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect” and said they did not reflect the degree of candour and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances. WHY IS THE EXACT AMOUNT OF CASH UNKNOWN? The committee could not establish the precise value of the currency because the cash was never formally seized, counted, inventoried or preserved at the scene. As a result, while the panel concluded that a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes had been present, it could not determine the exact amount. WHAT DID JUSTICE VARMA ARGUE? Justice Varma denied the allegations and maintained that no cash had been recovered from his residence. He argued that he was not present when the fire broke out and was not among the first responders, contending that the site was under the control of officials present at the time.
The BriefWire