The official investigation into the serious allegations surrounding former Justice Yashwant Varma has reached a major milestone. A three-member inquiry committee set up to investigate the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence has found him guilty on all three ‘Articles of Charge’ framed against him.

On Wednesday, August 12, the comprehensive two-volume report was officially tabled in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha by their respective secretaries general. This development follows the committee's earlier submission of its findings to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in May of this year. The extensive report includes all the oral and documentary evidence gathered by the panel throughout the course of the detailed probe.

According to the findings, the former judge could not offer any convincing or reasonable explanation about where the money came from, who owned it, or why it was present on his property.

Addressing the primary allegation, the panel clearly established the presence of the unexplained funds. The report explicitly noted: “Article I is proved. Substantial unexplained ₹500 denomination currency notes were found in the storeroom situated within the official residential premises at 30, Tughlaq Crescent,” the report stated.

Expanding further on this crucial point, the committee detailed the lack of clarification provided by the former judge. “Substantial unexplained ₹500 denomination currency notes were found in the storeroom situated within the official residential premises at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi. The Judge failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source or ownership thereof,” the report said.

Beyond the presence of the cash itself, the panel investigated the handling of the scene following the discovery. It concluded that Article II, which covers the failure to protect and preserve crucial material evidence, was also fully proved against the former magistrate. The inquiry highlighted that the physical state of the storeroom was altered and compromised before official authorities could lawfully seal and inspect the area, leading to an unexplained loss of evidence.

Clarifying the exact nature of this violation, the panel carefully outlined the basis of its conclusion: “The finding rests on failure to preserve, acquiescence in disturbance through the establishment attached to the premises, and resulting loss of material evidence, and not upon proof of personal physical removal by the Judge,” the committee said.

Regarding the third charge, the committee expressed serious concerns about the former judge’s conduct during the process. The report noted that the former judge “did not exhibit the candour, transparency and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances”. The committee concluded this section by explicitly recommending that “further action may be considered in accordance with law”.

A central concern raised in the report is that material evidence was not secured properly, and the former judge was completely unable to explain the subsequent disappearance of the remaining cash from the premises.

This high-profile case originally began on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out in a storeroom at Justice Varma's government bungalow located on Tughlak Crescent in New Delhi. At the time, he was serving as a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. Firefighters and police officers who rushed to control the blaze discovered stacks of ₹500 currency notes scattered across the floor, with several notes actively burning or partially destroyed by the fire.

Following the fire incident, the Supreme Court of India promptly established an internal in-house panel to investigate the matter. That panel concluded that cash was indeed present and found that Justice Varma exercised “covert or active control” over the storeroom in question. Although calls were made for his resignation in May 2025, Justice Varma initially refused to step down. This refusal prompted the Chief Justice of India to formally recommend his removal from judicial office.

By August 2025, an impeachment motion signed by more than 140 Members of Parliament was formally admitted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, leading to the formation of the three-member Judges Inquiry Committee to thoroughly examine the charges.

Eventually, in April, after the initiation of the internal in-house inquiry, the former judge tendered his resignation. Following his departure, he also withdrew from participating in the ongoing proceedings before the parliamentary Judges Inquiry Committee. By choosing to resign at that stage, Justice Yashwant Varma effectively halted the parliamentary impeachment process, thereby securing his official retirement benefits.

In a related legal development, the Supreme Court recently considered a petition asking for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and a court-monitored criminal investigation against former Justice Varma. However, the Apex Court chose to dismiss the plea, firmly observing that the petition had been filed merely for “cheap publicity”.

Now, with the parliamentary inquiry committee's definitive findings finding him guilty on all charges, the Supreme Court's earlier refusal to order a criminal investigation brings up significant questions. The findings leave many asking why a former judge, having resigned from his judicial seat, should not face standard proceedings and be tried in a court of law just like any ordinary citizen.