New Delhi: Justice Yashwant Varma, who is facing impeachment proceedings after a huge amount of currency notes was found at his residence on Wednesday, told a parliamentary panel that he was not present at his house when the fire took place and claimed that no cash was recovered, according to India Today.
In his response before the panel, Justice Varma stated that he was not the first responder and had no role in any cash recovery. He also said that the first responders failed to secure the scene of the incident.
"Why should I be impeached if officials failed to secure the site. The police and fire department officials present failed to take action as required," Justice Varma said.
"If I weren't present at the site and weren't the first responder, how can I be held responsible for not securing it... The site was in control of those present," Justice Varma further said.
The three-member inquiry committee, comprising Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B V Acharya, was set up by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla after admitting a multi-party motion for Justice Varma’s removal on August 12 last year.
On March 14, 2025, burnt stacks of cash were found at his official residence. Following the recovery of the cash, Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
Subsequently, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry and constituted a three-member committee, which found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct. After Justice Varma declined to resign, the CJI forwarded the report, along with the judge’s response, to the President and the Prime Minister, setting the stage for impeachment proceedings.
Justice Varma has recently moved the Supreme Court, challenging the constitution of the inquiry committee. Notices have been issued to the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Secretaries General of both Houses of Parliament.
Justice Varma has sought the quashing of the Speaker’s action, the admission of the motion, and all consequential notices issued by the inquiry committee, contending that the entire process is unconstitutional and contrary to the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
