Justice Yashwant Varma has declined to step down from his position as a judge of the High Court, despite being indicted by a Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry committee that investigated allegations of unaccounted cash being recovered from his official residence in Delhi.
According to sources, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, after receiving the committee’s report, had advised Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. However, with Justice Varma refusing to resign, the CJI has now formally forwarded the committee’s findings along with Justice Varma’s written response to the President of India and the Prime Minister, as per the established in-house procedure for judicial accountability.
This move effectively places the matter in the hands of the Central Government and Parliament, paving the way for possible impeachment proceedings against the judge.
Composition and Findings of the Inquiry Committee
The three-member in-house panel was constituted by the CJI on March 22, 2025. It comprised Chief Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana High Court), Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court). The panel began its inquiry on March 25 and submitted its report to CJI Khanna on May 4.
The committee was set up in the aftermath of a fire at Justice Varma’s government residence in Delhi on March 14. During firefighting operations, emergency responders allegedly discovered bundles of unaccounted cash, some of which were captured burning in a video that later surfaced and was widely circulated.
At the time of the fire, Justice Varma and his wife were travelling in Madhya Pradesh. Only his daughter and elderly mother were present at the residence. Justice Varma has denied all allegations, claiming that the incident was a “conspiracy to frame” him.
Public Disclosure and Administrative Action
In an unprecedented step, the Supreme Court not only made the video public but also released a preliminary fact-finding note by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, along with Justice Varma’s initial response.
Following the incident, Justice Varma was repatriated to his parent High Court — the Allahabad High Court — where he recently took oath. However, on the instructions of the CJI, his judicial work has been temporarily withheld. The Allahabad High Court Bar Association had earlier staged a strike to protest his return.
Legal and Procedural Developments
While the in-house committee continued its probe, the Supreme Court, exercising judicial restraint, refused to entertain a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma, citing the pendency of the internal inquiry.
Meanwhile, reports suggest that Justice Varma sought legal advice from senior lawyers soon after the committee initiated its proceedings.
With the matter now officially escalated to the highest constitutional authorities, the final decision on initiating impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma rests with the Union Government and the Parliament.
