English
English
English
Justice Yashwant Varma has denied allegations of cash recovery at his Delhi residence, telling a parliamentary panel he was not present during the fire and blaming police and fire officials for lapses. Impeachment proceedings against him continue.
Justice Yashwant Varma (Image Source: Internet)
New Delhi: Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has been at the centre of a major controversy following allegations that a large amount of cash was discovered at his official residence in New Delhi after an accidental fire in March last year.
The incident, which occurred on the night of March 14–15, triggered a series of legal, judicial, and parliamentary proceedings, eventually leading to the initiation of impeachment motions against him in Parliament.
Justice Varma has now presented his defence before a three-member parliamentary committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The committee is headed by Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar.
Who are the judges probing charges against Justice Yashwant Varma?
In his submission, Justice Varma categorically denied the allegations of cash recovery and stated that he was not present in Delhi at the time of the fire. He argued that since he was away from the Capital, he could not be held responsible for any failure by officials to secure the premises after the incident.
According to sources familiar with the proceedings, Justice Varma told the committee that police and fire department officials who arrived as first responders failed to follow proper procedures.
Justice Aravind Kumar, Senior Advocate BV Acharya, Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava
He claimed that any lapse in safeguarding the site or recording recoveries, if any, was entirely due to official negligence and not his conduct. He reiterated that there is no official record proving that cash was recovered from the site of the fire.
Justice Varma further clarified that the fire broke out in an outhouse on the premises, which is separate from his residential quarters. He emphasized that this outhouse is located near CRPF barracks and is accessible to several individuals, making it unreasonable to directly link him to any alleged recovery. He also pointed out that there is no CCTV footage to substantiate claims of cash being found at the location.
This is not the first time Justice Varma has taken this position. He had earlier made similar submissions before an in-house inquiry committee appointed by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, as well as during proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Despite his defence, the in-house inquiry panel found substance in the allegations and forwarded its findings to the President and Prime Minister for further action.
Following the inquiry, the Supreme Court Collegium proposed Justice Varma’s transfer from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court on March 20.
SC rejects Justice Yashwant Varma's plea challenging in-house inquiry for his removal
Soon after, impeachment motions were introduced in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The Lok Sabha Speaker subsequently constituted the parliamentary inquiry committee, which also includes Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and senior advocate B V Acharya.
Justice Varma has challenged both the in-house inquiry and the parliamentary committee before the Supreme Court. While the court dismissed his challenge to the in-house inquiry in August 2025, it has reserved its verdict on his plea against the parliamentary committee.
The Supreme Court has also declined to grant him additional time to respond to the committee’s notice, underlining the seriousness of the matter.
