New Delhi: The report of the inquiry committee probing charges against former Allahabad high court judge Yashwant Varma, from whose official residence a huge amount of cash was discovered after a fire in March 2025, was tabled in Lok Sabha on Wednesday (August 12). The report finds that the justice, who already resigned in April this year, has failed to explain the discovery of the currency notes on his residential premises.It says he did not participate in the inquiry proceedings as “expected”, leading to an adverse finding against him. “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…” notes the report.The report notes that the judge did not display the “candour, transparency and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances” and instead remained “evasive and unsatisfactory” when tested against independent witnesses.Ex-justice Varma was a judge of the Delhi high court in whose house large amounts of currency notes were discovered in March 2025. The inquiry committee probing the allegations against him consists of Justice Aravind Kumar, a Supreme Court judge, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, chief justice of the Bombay high court and B.V. Acharya, a senior advocate in the Karnataka high court.The proceedings in Justice Varma’s case are under the Judges’ Inquiry Act, 1968.Findings of the committeeThe committe’s report notes that “it is not possible to determine the exact amount of currency found inside the storeroom” in the judge’s residence, since these notes were not seized, nor was an inventory prepared, nor panchnama drawn up. However, it says that the evidence “is not of a few stray notes or isolated remnants. It is of bundles, heaps and stacks of Rs 500 denomination of Indian currency notes seen in burnt, half-burnt, wet and scattered condition within the storeroom”.It says that the committee had “already recorded” the failure to preserve the sample currency notes and that the currency was not seized or recorded by the police or the fire brigade because their personnel were “under certain apprehension and under the impression that an official complaint would be made, as the scene of occurrence was within the official bungalow of a sitting judge”.On the defence of Varma, that the storeroom where the notes were discovered was not exclusively accessed by him, the committee finds that this “requires to be tested against the judge’s own [earlier] statement that the storeroom had a locked cabinet”. Their report says that a cabinet of personal articles cannot be seen as wholly outside the knowledge and control of the occupant of the residence.The report records the failure of Varma to disclose or explain the lawful source or ownership of the currency notes. In his reply dated March 22, 2025, the judge said he was unaware of any cash lying in the outhouse storeroom in his residence. He also said other members of his family had no knowledge of the cash. As a result, the the question of explaining the source did not arise, he had said.The judge had also rejected the suggestion that currency notes were removed from the storeroom. “However,” notes the panel, “he [Varma] failed to enter the [witness] box and say so on oath and did not face cross examination.”As a result, the panel notes that it is drawing an adverse inference against him. “…the learned judge, having participated in the proceedings upto completion of evidence in proof of charges, and after seeking time to produce evidence on his behalf, suddenly decided to withdraw from the proceedings and made it clear that he will not participate in the proceedings any more. Thus, he has failed to co-operate with the committee in its proceedings,” the report notes.It says that the judge could not provide a “satisfactory explanation” for these developments and that his defence of a conspiracy or planting of currency notes could not be substantiated.“No person has been identified. No occasion of entry has been established. No material has been produced to show how such substantial currency notes could have been brought into the premises without detection. No credible alternative source or owner has been disclosed. The plea remains at the level of possibility,” the report says.Background to the current inquiryAs The Wire has reported, in May 2025, a three-judge in-house inquiry committe was set up in the Delhi high court to probe the allegations against Varma. This commitee said that it had found the allegations credible, following which the report was forwarded to then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, who had advised Varma to resign or seek voluntary retirement.Varma chose the former option, but only in April 2026. In 2025, he had approached the Supreme Court, challenging the in-house report and its being sent to the CJI. This petition was dismissed in August 2025.In an unprecedented move, CJI Khanna had also decided to make public the report of Delhi high court Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya about the issue, and a video showing the presence of currency in the gutted room.As a result, the constitutional process for a high court judges’ removal came into the picture. In July 2025, more than 100 members of the Lok Sabha also signed a notice of motion seeking to present an address to the President of India for his removal.The report of the three-member committee would normally become the basis for proceedings against him. However, the next steps are unclear in ex-Justice Varma’s case, as he has already resigned. Technically, the resignation would end all proceedings against the judge.