4 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Aug 13, 2026 02:52 AM IST
Though Justice Yashwant Varma resigned as a judge of the Allahabad High Court in April this year while facing a parliamentary motion for his removal, government sources said Wednesday that his resignation would not affect the House proceedings initiated against him, as the motion had been admitted before he quit the judiciary.
“That motion remains in force as it started before he resigned. Despite his resignation, Parliament has to take into account his conduct and decide on his perks and pension,” a Union minister said on condition of anonymity.
The three-member committee constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla submitted its report on May 18, and it was tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, nearly 17 months after burnt currency notes were discovered at Varma’s official residence in New Delhi following a fire.
The committee has found all three ‘Articles of Charge’ against him proved. The report itself does not determine the precise amount of cash found. Its findings rest on the established presence of substantial cash on premises under his effective control, the failure to preserve the evidence and the inadequacy of his subsequent explanations.
The findings bring back into focus the question of what Parliament can do with proceedings against a judge who has resigned before the process for his removal is completed. Varma had tendered his resignation on April 9, 2026, and withdrew from the statutory inquiry.
The controversy began on the night of March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlaq Crescent in Delhi, when he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. During the firefighting operation, substantial quantities of partly burnt currency notes were found in a storeroom on the premises.
The Supreme Court, then headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, initiated an in-house inquiry into the allegations. The inquiry committee subsequently found that Varma had “active or tacit control” over the storeroom where the cash was found. He was transferred to the Allahabad High Court in April 2025, though he was not assigned judicial work.
Story continues below this ad
The next stage began with the proceedings in Parliament for his removal. On July 21, 2025, 146 Lok Sabha MPs submitted a motion seeking Varma’s removal. Speaker Om Birla admitted the motion on August 12, 2025, and constituted a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The committee was headed by Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar and comprised Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Senior Advocate B V Acharya.
The committee continued its proceedings even after Varma resigned in April 2026 and submitted its report to the Speaker on May 18, 2026.
Of the committee’s three ‘Articles of Charge’, the first concerned the discovery and possession of unexplained Indian currency at his official residence. The committee concluded that substantial Rs 500 currency notes were present in the storeroom and that the room formed part of the premises under Varma’s effective control. It found that he had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence and ownership of the cash.
The second charge concerned the failure to preserve material evidence. The committee found that the scene was not adequately preserved after the fire and that the currency, which could have constituted crucial evidence, was subsequently unavailable. The committee’s finding did not require it to conclude that Varma personally removed the cash.
Story continues below this ad
The third charge concerned the explanations furnished by Varma. The committee found his explanations evasive and misleading, including his failure to satisfactorily account for the presence of cash and the subsequent disappearance of the material evidence. It also rejected alternative theories advanced during the proceedings in the absence of supporting evidence.
The committee has concluded that all three charges stand proved.