A three-member judicial panel has recommended the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma, a former Delhi High Court judge, after unaccounted bundles of cash were allegedly found burning in a mysterious fire at his residence. The panel’s 90-page report, submitted to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on May 3, found compelling evidence of serious misconduct.
The fire broke out on March 14 at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence while he was reportedly vacationing in Uttar Pradesh. Firefighters discovered the charred remains of currency notes in a storeroom. Justice Varma later claimed he was the victim of a conspiracy, but the panel dismissed this explanation. The panel, formed by the then CJI and comprising Chief Justices Sheel Nagu and G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Anu Sivaraman, examined 54 witnesses, including the judge, his family members, fire officials, and police.
With an ironic twist, the panel noted that the evidence was of “unimpeachable character” and concluded that the misconduct warranted his removal. “The trust reposed in him was belied by allowing highly suspicious material in the form of currency wads to be stored in his residence,” the report said.
The committee cited strong inferential evidence indicating that the cash had been removed from the storeroom during the early hours of March 15 under the covert control of Justice Varma and his family. It rejected the theory of a “conspiracy” or that the money was planted, noting that no concrete explanation was offered by the judge or his family.
The panel also found Justice Varma’s behaviour suspicious. Despite rushing back from Uttar Pradesh, he didn’t inspect the burnt area or file any police complaint. He also failed to report the matter to the Chief Justice or secure CCTV footage after learning of the discovery of burnt cash. His quiet acceptance of a transfer order to Allahabad High Court, without protest, further added to the committee’s doubts.
The report, leaked to the media and published by legal news portal The Leaflet, paints a damning picture, raising serious questions about judicial accountability and the breach of public trust by a high constitutional officeholder.
