In a development that has shaken the higher judiciary, a three-judge inquiry panel has recommended impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma, currently serving at the Allahabad High Court, after finding strong evidence suggesting his involvement in a suspicious fire incident at his official residence in Delhi, which revealed large amounts of burnt currency.
The panel, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab and Haryana High Court), Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court), was constituted by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on March 22, 2025. Their 64-page report concluded that “burnt cash/money was found in the store room of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi, officially occupied by Justice (Yashwant) Varma,” and that “access to the store room… was within the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members.”
Fire Incident and Discovery of Cash
The accidental fire occurred around 11:35 PM on March 14, 2025, at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. Eyewitnesses including firemen and police personnel stated that they observed large piles of burnt currency notes, primarily in ₹500 denominations, in a locked store room. One fire officer recalled, “I noticed that on the right-hand side and in front, there was a large pile of cash… I was shocked and surprised by such a large amount.”
The panel noted that at least 10 witnesses saw burnt or half-burnt currency. Still photographs and videos submitted by witnesses, captured with precise geo-coordinates, corroborated these accounts. One widely circulated video, verified to contain the voice of Station Officer Manoj Mehlawat, was heard saying, “Mahatma Gandhi me aag lag rahi hai,” referencing the burning of ₹500 notes.
Panel’s Findings
The committee framed three key questions:
- Was burnt currency found in the store room? – Yes, based on direct and electronic evidence.
- Was the store room within the residential premises? – Yes, and under the control of Justice Varma’s family.
- Did Justice Varma account for the presence of the money? – No plausible explanation was provided.
The report stated, “Justice Varma has failed to discharge this burden… The burnt cash was found in the store room in the night intervening 14/15.03.2025.” Further, it said, “Whether this stashing was done with tacit or explicit consent… is of little significance in the face of larger concept of breach of public trust.”
The panel also concluded that the cash was removed in the early hours of March 15 by trusted domestic staff and Justice Varma’s Private Secretary Rajinder Singh Karki, who allegedly attempted to suppress evidence. Despite denials, video and witness testimonies confirmed Karki’s instructions to fire personnel not to record the presence of currency and his involvement in cleaning the site the following day.
Response from Justice Varma
Justice Varma, who was in Bhopal at the time of the fire, denied all allegations and termed the inquiry “fundamentally unjust.” In a 101-page response, he criticized the burden of proof placed on him, asserting that the panel presumed guilt without establishing incriminating evidence. He claimed that the issues framed by the CJI forced him to “disprove a fact which is presumed to be prima-facie true.”
Justice Varma also questioned why no attempt was made to retrieve CCTV footage and why he did not file a complaint about the supposed conspiracy to plant evidence. The committee found his defense of a conspiracy “unconvincing and unsupported by any material.”
Panel’s Observations on Judicial Conduct
Quoting the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (adopted in 1997), the panel stated that “probity is the most important and indispensable attribute of a person holding judicial office.” It stressed that judges must maintain unimpeachable character both inside and outside the courtroom and that “any deficiency in this regard erodes public trust which ought to be viewed stringently.”
Current Status
Justice Varma, recently transferred back to the Allahabad High Court, has not been assigned any judicial work. He has refused to resign or opt for voluntary retirement, despite the impeachment recommendation.
The matter is expected to move further as the Supreme Court and relevant constitutional authorities consider the panel’s recommendation for removal proceedings.
