Former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has withdrawn from the parliamentary inquiry against him after resigning from his post, sharply criticising the proceedings as unfair and one-sided.
In a 13-page letter to the inquiry committee, Justice Varma made it clear that he no longer wished to participate in what he described as a flawed process. “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,” he wrote.
The inquiry was initiated after a large amount of cash was reportedly found at his official residence following a fire incident in March 2025. The motion seeking his removal had been admitted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, leading to the formation of a parliamentary committee.
Justice Varma, however, reiterated that the money did not belong to him or his family and that he had no knowledge of its presence.
Explaining the circumstances of the incident, he said, “During the Holi break of the High Court in 2025, my spouse and I travelled for a short vacation, while we were at a remote location with limited mobile connectivity, a fire occurred in a storeroom.”
He added that he only became aware of the situation much later. “I learned about the occurrence of the fire only around 1:10/1:15 a.m. on 15.03.2025… I was not informed about the recording of these photos or videos, nor was I aware of the presence or discovery of such currency/cash.”
A key part of his defence was that the storeroom in question was not part of his immediate living space and was accessible to others. He described it as “a detached structure adjacent to the staff quarters,” adding that it was “unlocked, accessible through a back gate and by a host of staff.”
He also pointed to gaps in the evidence, especially the absence of CCTV footage.
“Despite repeated requests, the best evidence that could shed light on the entire incident has been kept away,” he said, raising questions about transparency in the inquiry.
Justice Varma accused the committee of relying on limited facts to draw sweeping conclusions. “From these two facts alone, inferences of my culpability appear to have been drawn,” he said, referring to the existence of the storeroom and the alleged discovery of cash.
He also criticised the way witnesses were handled during the proceedings. “Out of the 54 witnesses who had appeared before the IHC, 27 were dropped without any explanation being furnished,” he wrote, suggesting that testimonies favourable to him were ignored.
On the legal standard required in such cases, he argued that the threshold had not been met. “The standard of proof… is akin to a criminal trial, beyond reasonable doubt. An examination of the record as it exists should have led to the proceedings being dropped at this stage,” he said.
Rejecting the allegation that he had given evasive answers, Justice Varma clarified his position: “I stated only that the cash did not belong to me or my family members, that position has remained consistent throughout.”
He also addressed claims of evidence tampering, stating, “No witness has attributed any instruction, interference, tampering or acquiescence to me or to any person acting at my behest.”
In a strong closing note, he questioned the very fairness of the inquiry. “A rational and fair inquiry would have recognised the complete absence of a prima facie case,” he said, adding, “I cannot reconcile this state of affairs with any notion of fairness or due process.”
Announcing his decision to step away, he wrote, “I withdraw with the deepest sadness, with the hope that history will one day record the unfairness with which a sitting High Court Judge was treated, and that has marked this entire episode from its inception.”
With his resignation and withdrawal, the proceedings now stand at a critical juncture, even as the larger questions around the allegations and the inquiry process remain unresolved.