The Judges Inquiry Committee has held that all three Articles of Charge against Justice Yashwant Varma stand proved in connection with the discovery of large quantities of ₹500 denomination currency notes in a storeroom at his official residence in New Delhi.
The matter arose following a fire on the night of March 14-15, 2025, at Justice Varma’s official residence at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi. Burnt, half-burnt and wet ₹500 currency notes were found in large quantities inside the storeroom.
Recording its consolidated findings, the Committee held Articles I, II and III proved. It found that substantial unexplained ₹500 denomination currency notes were present in the storeroom, that material evidence was not secured or preserved, and that the explanation furnished by the Judge was evasive and unsatisfactory when tested against the evidence before the Committee.
Article I: Unexplained ₹500 Currency Notes
On the first Article of Charge, the Committee recorded that substantial unexplained ₹500 denomination currency notes were found in the storeroom situated within the official residential premises at 30, Tughlaq Crescent.
The Committee found that Justice Varma failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source or ownership of the currency notes.
“Article I is proved. Substantial unexplained ₹500 denomination currency notes were found in the storeroom situated within the official residential premises at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi. The Judge failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source or ownership thereof.”
Article II: Material Evidence Not Secured or Preserved
The Committee also held Article II proved, finding that material evidence was not secured or preserved and that the evidentiary condition of the storeroom had been disturbed before lawful sealing and inspection.
It further noted that the currency notes later became unavailable and that their non-availability remained unexplained.
The Committee, however, expressly clarified that its finding was not based on proof that Justice Varma had personally physically removed the currency notes.
“The finding rests on failure to preserve, acquiescence in disturbance through the establishment attached to the premises, and resulting loss of material evidence, and not upon proof of personal physical removal by the Judge.”
Thus, the finding under Article II rested on the failure to preserve the material evidence, acquiescence in the disturbance of the storeroom through the establishment attached to the premises, and the consequent loss of evidence.
Article III: Explanation Found Evasive and Unsatisfactory
The third Article of Charge was also held proved.
The Committee examined the explanation furnished by Justice Varma, particularly his reply dated March 22, 2025, as well as the stand subsequently taken by him.
It concluded that the explanation did not exhibit the candour, transparency and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances.
“It remained evasive and unsatisfactory when tested against the evidence of independent official witnesses and corroborative material.”
The Committee accordingly held Article III proved.
All Three Articles of Charge Proved
Summing up its conclusions, the Committee recorded:
“The Committee therefore records its final findings that Articles of Charges I, II & III are proved.”
The Committee has submitted its report together with the record of proceedings, documents, exhibits and material forming part of the inquiry for such further action as may be considered in accordance with law.
