Justice Varma cash recovery case: Parliament-appointed panel finds all charges proven

All three charges against Justice Yashwant Varma in relation to the "recovery of cash from a storeroom" at his official residence were proved by an inquiry panel appointed by the Parliament, stated a report tabled in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on Wednesday (August 12).

The panel further stated that a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes was recovered from the storeroom, adding that Justice Verma failed to provide a satisfactory explanation about its ownership, origin and presence.

The report stated that the storeroom was disturbed before it could be properly sealed and inspected, which led to an adverse impact on preserving evidence.

Changing explanations

It said that even though Justice Verma, who resigned as High Court Judge in April this year, initially denied the allegation, he later made different claims and suggestions, including that the cash might have been planted or there could be a conspiracy behind it.

Also Read: SC refuses to entertain plea for FIR, probe against former HC judge Yashwant Varma

However, the panel stated in the report, that no concrete evidence was provided in support of the claims adding that neither relevant staff members were examined nor was any formal complaint or FIR lodged claiming that the cash has been tampered planted and evidence have been tampered with.

Three charges

The panel stated that the charges against Justice Verma are threefold. Elaborating further, it said - firstly, discovery and possession of unexplained Indian currency notes within official premises; secondly, failure to preserve and causing interference with material evidence; and thirdly, furnishing evasive and misleading explanations.

Also Read: Justice Yashwant Varma resigns amid impeachment proceedings over cash row

"Article I is proved. Substantial unexplained Rs 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," it stated as quoted by ANI.

Charges held proved: Probe panel

"Article II is proved that material evidence was not secured or preserved; the evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before lawful sealing and inspection; and the later non-availability of the currency notes remains unexplained. 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. Article III is proved," it added.

It further stated that the former judge’s explanation, particularly the reply dated March 22, 2025 and the subsequent stand taken, did not "exhibit the candour, transparency and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances. It remained evasive and unsatisfactory when tested against the evidence of independent official witnesses and corroborative material".