Burnt Cash-at-Home Row: Justice Yashwant Varma Probe Report Tabled in Parliament

The inquiry into the controversial cash-at-home case involving Justice Yashwant Varma moved to a crucial stage on Wednesday, with the report of the three-member Judges Inquiry Committee formally tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

The report was laid separately in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha by the respective secretaries general. It runs into two volumes and includes oral and documentary evidence collected during the committee's investigation.

The panel had submitted its findings to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in May, after being constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The committee was headed by Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar and included Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and senior advocate B V Acharya. The Lok Sabha Secretariat had earlier confirmed that the report was submitted to Birla in accordance with the statutory procedure.

The controversy dates back to the night of March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma's official residence in New Delhi. Firefighters responding to the blaze allegedly found a large quantity of burnt currency notes in a storeroom, triggering an inquiry and a wider debate over judicial accountability.

An earlier in-house inquiry constituted by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna concluded that Varma had "active or tacit control" over the storeroom where the cash was found. More than 200 MPs subsequently signed a motion seeking his removal, leading to the parliamentary inquiry. The Supreme Court had also rejected Varma's challenge to the in-house inquiry process.

Justice Varma was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court following the controversy. He later resigned from the Allahabad High Court in April 2026, submitting his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu with immediate effect.

His resignation has effectively complicated the removal proceedings, since he is no longer a sitting judge. Constitutional experts had earlier questioned the utility of continuing an impeachment process after his resignation.