The three-member committee constituted to investigate the discovery of ‘burnt currency notes’ at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has said that the former judge withdrew from the committee’s proceedings too late.
Political Context
The discovery of the currency notes occurred in the national capital when he was a Delhi High Court judge. Parallel communications were sent to the President and Chief Justice of India on the same day. Article III was proved.
The committee’s report, in a way, responds to questions in the public domain such as why it chose to continue its work and submit the report to Parliament even after Justice Varma ceased to be a judge with his resignation, with immediate effect, on April 9. In a communication sent to the committee on April 9, the former Allahabad High Court judge had informed it of his decision to withdraw from the proceedings. The committee report said Justice Varma, in the April 9 communication, had further found fault with the inquiry on several counts, including procedural unfairness, reversal of burden, non-availability of CCTV footage. Article 217 permits a High Court judge to resign by writing to the President.
The report, tabled in Parliament on Wednesday (August 12, 2026), found the charges against Justice Varma “proved”, holding that his explanations were “evasive and unsatisfactory”. The report chose to rebut him, saying that “silence may permit a partial account to assume the character of the whole”. For one, the committee said rather than making allegations, the former judge ought to have entered the witness box. It said Justice Varma withdrew from the inquiry proceedings at the crucial point of when he had to produce evidence for his defence. “The least that could have been done by the judge was to enter the witness box and deny the charge, which he did not choose to do, but abandoned (withdrew) from further participation in the inquiry,” it said. The panel said a statutory inquiry cannot depend on the “unilateral” decision of a judge under inquiry, especially after the “evidence has substantially come on record”. The report said they did not display the “candour, transparency and institutional responsibility” expected in the circumstances and remained “evasive and unsatisfactory” when tested against independent official witnesses and corroborative material.
Earlier reporting noted: Third, it examined Justice Varma’s explanations and found them wanting. Earlier reporting noted: The Houses would then present an address to the President seeking removal. Earlier reporting noted: His resignation has not been formally notified, although legal commentators have argued that such a resignation takes effect without separate acceptance.
