A three-member inquiry committee has found all three charges against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma proved in the cash-at-home case. The committee concluded that a substantial amount of unexplained cash was found at his official residence in Delhi. It also found that material evidence from the site was not properly preserved and that Justice Varma’s explanations about the incident were evasive and unsatisfactory.

The findings relate to cash discovered in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlak Crescent on March 14, 2025. A fire had broken out at the house that day. During the firefighting operation, a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes was found in the storeroom. The committee said the evidence pointed to bundles, heaps and stacks of currency rather than a few stray notes.

The panel, however, did not conclude that Justice Varma personally owned the money in the criminal-law sense. Its finding was that substantial unexplained cash was found on premises under his control. It also held that he failed to satisfactorily explain the presence, source or ownership of the cash.

The inquiry committee was constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. It examined three formal charges against Justice Varma. The first charge concerned the unexplained cash found at his official residence. The committee rejected his argument that the storeroom was completely outside his control. It held that the room formed part of his official residential premises and remained under his institutional control.

The second charge dealt with the handling of evidence after the fire. The committee found that the storeroom was not immediately sealed after first responders left. Cleaning was also carried out at the site. By the time a formal inspection took place, the cash was no longer available. The panel concluded that important evidence had not been properly secured or preserved.

The report referred to the presence of Justice Varma’s Private Secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and household staff member Mohd Rahil near the storeroom during the cleaning process. However, the committee did not find that Justice Varma himself had removed the cash.

The third charge concerned Justice Varma’s explanations about the incident. The committee found them inadequate. It said his responses did not sufficiently address questions about the presence, source and ownership of the money. They also did not adequately explain the steps taken after the fire. The panel described his responses as “evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect” and said they did not reflect the degree of candour and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances.

The committee could not determine the exact amount of cash found at the residence. The money was never formally seized, counted, inventoried or preserved at the scene. The panel could therefore conclude only that a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes had been present. It could not establish the precise value.

Justice Varma denied the allegations and maintained that no cash had been recovered from his residence. He said he was not present when the fire broke out and was not among the first responders. He argued that the site was under the control of officials who were present at the time.

His defence also raised the possibility of a conspiracy, planting of currency, fake notes and removal of money by first responders. The committee rejected these claims, saying they were not supported by defence evidence. It noted that Justice Varma’s side did not submit any defence witnesses or affidavits. The panel ultimately rejected his claim that the storeroom was entirely outside his control.

Justice Varma later stopped participating in the proceedings after the presenting side completed its evidence and cross-examination. The committee continued its examination of the testimony, documents and other material placed before it.

The controversy began on March 14, 2025, when the fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. During the firefighting operation, stacks of cash, some reportedly more than 1.5 feet high, were said to have been found at the premises. The discovery led to a major controversy. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna ordered an in-house inquiry. Justice Varma was later transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court. His judicial work was also withdrawn while the inquiry was pending.

The parliamentary inquiry began after the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted a motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal. The Joint Inquiry Committee was constituted in September 2025. It held its first meeting on September 17 and formally framed the charges on November 26. Justice Varma challenged the committee’s constitution, but the Supreme Court dismissed his plea on January 16, 2026.

The evidentiary phase began later in January. Justice Varma’s side sought access to records, electronic material and official documents. The committee also directed the Delhi Police, CRPF and fire services to produce specific records. Several first responders and other officials were examined and cross-examined between March 13 and March 17. The presenting side completed its evidence on March 17.

The committee’s findings prove the three charges for the purpose of the parliamentary removal process. They do not amount to a criminal conviction against Justice Varma. The panel did not make a criminal-law finding that the cash personally belonged to him. Its central finding was that substantial unexplained cash was found on premises under his control, that he failed to satisfactorily account for it and that material evidence connected to the incident was not properly preserved.

Justice Varma, however, resigned as a judge of the Allahabad High Court while facing possible removal by Parliament. His resignation made the impeachment proceedings infructuous. People familiar with the constitutional process said that under a Supreme Court judgment, a judge is deemed to have resigned once the resignation is tendered to the President and a copy is made public. A judge’s resignation does not require conventional acceptance by the President. The President later gives formal acknowledgment, after which the Department of Justice in the Union Law Ministry notifies the resignation.