New Delhi: In a significant development that raises serious concerns about judicial accountability, a three-member inquiry committee has recommended initiating removal proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court. The recommendation, based on both direct and electronic evidence, follows a letter dated March 22, 2025, from the Chief Justice of India that flagged serious allegations against the judge. The committee concluded that the charges had merit and the misconduct proven was grave enough to warrant his ouster.
One of the most striking findings in the report was the discovery of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlak Crescent in New Delhi. Investigators located the money in a store room allegedly under the control of the judge and his family members. The panel also cited strong inferential evidence that indicated burnt cash was removed from the premises during the early hours of March 15, 2025.
The committee was equally critical of Justice Varma’s inaction following these discoveries. Despite suggesting the possibility of a conspiracy, he failed to lodge a police complaint or inform the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India. The panel described this behaviour as “unnatural conduct,” suggesting it weakened his defence and raised further suspicions.
Emphasising the importance of judicial integrity, the report highlighted that judges are held to a far higher standard of probity than other public officials. It noted that a judge’s actions—whether on or off the bench—directly influence public trust in the judiciary. Any lapse in conduct, the committee stated, has the potential to erode this trust and damage the institution’s credibility.
After a thorough examination of all physical and digital evidence, the inquiry panel concluded that Justice Varma’s misconduct had been clearly established. It recommended the initiation of formal proceedings for his removal, stating that the severity of the allegations and the supporting evidence left no room for leniency. If the recommendation is acted upon, it could trigger the rare constitutional process of judicial removal, requiring approval by Parliament and the President. The case stands as a stark reminder that even those entrusted with upholding justice are not above the law.
