No proof, only presumptions: Justice Varma withdraws from impeachment inquiry

Justice Yashwant Varma, who resigned amid an impeachment process against him over the recovery of wads of currency notes from his residence, has written to the parliamentary inquiry committee investigating the allegations, asserting that he has been subjected to a “deliberate vilification campaign” despite the absence of any direct evidence against him. Varma informed the panel of his resignation and announced his withdrawal from the ongoing proceedings, questioning both the fairness and the legal basis of the inquiry.

In a detailed 13-page letter, Varma reiterated his claims that he, then a Delhi High Court judge when the incident occurred in March 2025, was out of station at the time of the recovery and it defies logic to believe he would have chosen a storeroom to stash cash. The judge alleged that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself and that the probe was based on suggestions, imputations, and presumptions rather than concrete evidence.

The controversy began in March 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma's official bungalow in New Delhi. While battling the blaze, fire service personnel and police discovered stacks of burnt and partially burnt Rs 500 currency notes, estimated at nearly Rs 15 crore, hidden in a storeroom. Justice Varma maintained that the storeroom was not under his control, though subsequent investigations suggested otherwise.

"The incident occurred when I was physically absent from the premises (on a pre-planned vacation) with extremely limited mobile connectivity in a remote forest area, it defies ordinary logic and common sense to suggest that I would have chosen such a location to store 'cash'," Justice Varma said in his letter.

"Despite the above, I suffered the public vilification in silence, remaining hopeful that those tasked by the law and the system to investigate and ascertain the facts would address the issue appropriately and fairly. Regrettably, the proceedings that have followed have been concerned almost exclusively with establishing the bare facts that a storeroom existed in the allotted premises and that cash was found there," he added.

Varma maintained that no legally admissible proof had been produced to establish that any cash was found in the storeroom of his residence or that it belonged to him or his family.

The 57-year-old judicial officer further alleged that the parliamentary inquiry committee, constituted under the impeachment process, relied heavily on the findings of a prior in-house committee report, which he argued should never have been made public as it was meant solely for the Chief Justice of India. He criticised the enquiry panel for failing to undertake a fresh investigation under the Judges Inquiry Act, claiming instead that the proceedings were based on “suggestions, imputations and presumptions.”

"I state that the proceedings initiated against me, whether they be before the IHC or for that matter even the present enquiry, have all proceeded on unstated suggestions, insinuations and imputations requiring me to disprove assumed facts and innumerable presumptions. This has resulted not only in a reversal of the burden of proof as we commonly understand but also in placing upon me the onerous obligation of proving multiple negatives," the strongly-worder letter said.

Justice Varma informed the panel that he was stepping away from the inquiry, stating that continued participation would “legitimise a process” that, according to him, was fundamentally flawed. He argued that the proceedings were asking him to answer “the unanswerable”, specifically, to explain the origin of money he claims he had no knowledge of.

"In these circumstances, I would be doing myself and the institution the greatest disservice by continuing to participate in the present proceedings, thereby legitimising a process that calls upon me to answer the unanswerable - where did the money come from. I therefore withdraw from these proceedings with immediate effect and have instructed my Advocates accordingly," he said.

The former High Court judge expressed hope that “history will mark the unfairness” with which a sitting judge had been treated, signalling deep dissatisfaction with the conduct of the probe by the Parliament-appointed panel.

Justice Varma’s letter comes after he submitted his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu, citing “deep anguish”. His resignation effectively renders the impeachment proceedings initiated against him infructuous, as a sitting judge can only be removed through a parliamentary process.

Following the cash discovery, an internal inquiry by the Supreme Court, led by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, concluded that the cash was stored in a room under Justice Varma’s control. The panel found the allegations of misconduct to be substantiated and serious enough to warrant his removal.

Consequently, Justice Varma was stripped of his judicial duties and transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court in April 2025, though he remained without a work portfolio there as well.

The process to impeach him began in July 2025, when notices were moved in both Houses of Parliament, initiating the statutory mechanism for investigating “proved misbehaviour” by a sitting judge. A three-member committee was subsequently constituted by the Speaker to examine the allegations.