Justice Yashwant Varma has firmly denied allegations of cash recovery at his official residence in Delhi. He presented his case before a parliamentary committee examining an impeachment motion against him.
Absence from Delhi During Incident
Justice Varma stated he was not present in the Capital on the day of the incident. A fire occurred at his official residence on the night between March 14 and 15 last year. He argued he cannot be held responsible if officials failed to properly secure the site after the fire.
Challenging the Allegations
The judge disputed claims that cash was discovered during the fire. He emphasized that the fire affected the outhouse, which is separate from his living quarters. This area sits close to CRPF barracks and remains accessible to many people.
Justice Varma pointed out there is no official record of any cash recovery from the site. He also noted the absence of CCTV footage that could support the allegations against him.
Previous Legal Challenges
Justice Varma previously challenged the constitutionality of an in-house inquiry into the matter. He filed this challenge before the Supreme Court. However, on August 7, 2025, a two-judge bench dismissed his petition.
The bench found no procedural deviation in the inquiry process. This in-house committee had been appointed by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.
Parliamentary Committee Proceedings
The three-member parliamentary committee is headed by Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar. It also includes Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, and Senior Advocate B V Acharya.
This committee was formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Its creation followed impeachment motions introduced in both Houses of Parliament against Justice Varma.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy began with allegations of cash found at Justice Varma's residence during the fire. At that time, he served as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
On March 20, the Supreme Court Collegium proposed transferring Justice Varma to Allahabad. Two days later, the Chief Justice constituted a three-member committee to investigate the allegations.
The in-house inquiry panel found merit in the allegations against Justice Varma. It then forwarded its findings to the President and Prime Minister for further action.
Ongoing Legal Battle
Justice Varma has also challenged the legality of the parliamentary committee before the Supreme Court. A two-judge bench has reserved its decision on this petition.
While reserving its verdict, the Supreme Court refused to grant Justice Varma additional time to respond to the parliamentary committee's notice. The legal proceedings continue as the judge maintains his innocence against all allegations.
