Judge steps down during parliamentary probe, citing unfair proceedings, while continuing to deny ownership of cash recovered from his Delhi residence following a fire in 2025.
Justice Yashwant Varma Resigns During Ongoing Parliamentary Inquiry
New Delhi: Justice Yashwant Varma resigned as a judge of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday while a parliamentary inquiry committee was already in session investigating allegations linked to a large stash of cash recovered from his residence last year.
The resignation letter was presented to members of the Judges Inquiry Committee only after proceedings had already begun earlier in the day. Until that point, the panel had been working under the assumption that Justice Varma was continuing to contest the charges against him.
Earlier, the committee had received a 13-page communication from the judge indicating that he had written separately to the President, but the letter made no mention of his resignation.
Resignation Submitted Midway Through Proceedings
The committee began its scheduled hearing based on the initial communication. However, during the course of the sitting, Justice Varma’s resignation letter—addressed to the President—was placed before members.
By the afternoon, the panel was faced with two simultaneous developments:
- Justice Varma formally withdrawing from the inquiry proceedings
- His resignation from judicial office communicated directly to the President
In his letter dated April 9, Justice Varma stated that he was recusing himself from the inquiry because he believed the process was not fair.
He wrote that his withdrawal was taken “with deep anguish” and with full awareness of the seriousness of stepping back at such an advanced stage.
Judge Questions Fairness Of Inquiry Process
Justice Varma maintained that his resignation should not be interpreted as acceptance of the inquiry’s authority or conclusions.
Instead, he described the proceedings as being “predicated upon conjectures, allegations and presumptions,” arguing that continuing to participate would undermine both himself and the institution.
“I would be doing myself and the institution the greatest disservice by continuing to participate in the present proceedings,” he wrote.
He further alleged that the inquiry had reversed the burden of proof without first establishing a prima facie case of misconduct.
Justice Varma also questioned why the proceedings had commenced without what he described as a proper independent inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. He claimed the committee relied heavily on findings from a preliminary In-House Committee report that, according to him, was never intended for public or evidentiary use.
Cash Recovery Incident At Delhi Residence
The controversy stems from an incident in March 2025, when a significant quantity of cash was reportedly discovered in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi following a fire.
Justice Varma has consistently denied ownership of the cash.
In his letter, he explained that the storeroom was physically separate from the main residential area and was frequently accessed by staff and maintenance personnel.
He also stated:
- He was not present in the state at the time of the incident
- The storeroom keys were not in his possession
- CCTV cameras and security arrangements were not under his direct control
“It is illogical to assume that I had kept ‘cash’ in the storeroom,” he wrote.
Allegations About Witness Handling And Evidence
Justice Varma’s communication also included criticism of the inquiry process itself.
He alleged that certain witnesses were removed after their testimony weakened the case against him. He also claimed that the statutory fire report—reportedly making no reference to cash—was excluded from consideration.
Additionally, he argued that he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who had appeared during the earlier internal inquiry process.
The judge cited statements from witnesses suggesting that senior fire and police officials had decided not to record or seize cash on the night of the incident.
He further alleged that affidavits submitted by his personal security officers contained false information and claimed those officers were later dropped as witnesses after he requested a GPS-based verification of their movements.
Inquiry Continues Amid Legal Uncertainty
By the time the resignation letter was formally presented, the committee had already crossed a key procedural stage, having begun hearings under the assumption that Justice Varma remained subject to removal proceedings.
The development adds complexity to the inquiry process, particularly regarding whether proceedings will continue despite his resignation.
Justice Varma concluded his letter by expressing hope that the situation would eventually be viewed differently.
He wrote that he hoped “history will one day record the unfairness with which a sitting High Court Judge was treated.”