A Parliament-appointed inquiry panel has found all three charges against former Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma proved, concluding that substantial unexplained cash was found at his official residence, material evidence was not properly preserved, and his explanations about the incident were evasive and unsatisfactory.&nbsp;The inquiry concerns the recovery of cash from a storeroom at Justice Varma's official residence in New Delhi. The panel said a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes was found there. Justice Varma, who resigned as a High Court judge in April this year, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation about the source, ownership or presence of the money.<h2>What the inquiry panel found</h2>The committee identified three charges against Justice Varma. These involved the discovery and possession of unexplained Indian currency within official premises, failure to preserve and interference with material evidence, and furnishing evasive and misleading explanations.&nbsp;The panel conducted a detailed inquiry and examined documentary and electronic material. It also recorded statements from witnesses. Justice Varma was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and present his defence before the committee recorded its findings.&nbsp;"Substantial unexplained Rs 500 denomination currency notes were found in the storeroom situated within the official residential premises at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi. The Judge failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source or ownership thereof," it said.&nbsp;"It is proved that material evidence was not secured or preserved; the evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before lawful sealing and inspection; and the later non-availability of the currency notes remains unexplained," it added.&nbsp;The panel also examined Justice Varma's explanations, including his reply dated March 22, 2025 and his subsequent stand on the matter.&nbsp;The committee said his explanation did not "exhibit the candour, transparency and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances. It remained evasive and unsatisfactory when tested against the evidence of independent official witnesses and corroborative material".&nbsp;Justice Varma initially denied the allegations but later suggested alternative explanations for the cash found at his residence. He suggested that the money could have been planted or that a conspiracy involving others may have taken place.<h2>Fire at Delhi residence triggered inquiry</h2>The controversy began on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. Firefighting operations led to the discovery of stacks of cash at the premises, with some reportedly measuring more than 1.5 feet in height.&nbsp;The discovery sparked a major controversy and prompted then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to order an in-house inquiry.&nbsp;Justice Varma was later transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court. His judicial work was also withdrawn while the inquiry was pending.

A Parliament-appointed inquiry panel has found all three charges proved against Justice Yashwant Varma over unexplained cash recovered from his official residence, failure to preserve evidence and evasive explanations.

A Parliament-appointed inquiry panel has found all three charges against former Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma proved, concluding that substantial unexplained cash was found at his official residence, material evidence was not properly preserved, and his explanations about the incident were evasive and unsatisfactory. The inquiry concerns the recovery of cash from a storeroom at Justice Varma's official residence in New Delhi. The panel said a substantial quantity of Rs 500 notes was found there. Justice Varma, who resigned as a High Court judge in April this year, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation about the source, ownership or presence of the money. What the inquiry panel found The committee identified three charges against Justice Varma. These involved the discovery and possession of unexplained Indian currency within official premises, failure to preserve and interference with material evidence, and furnishing evasive and misleading explanations. The panel conducted a detailed inquiry and examined documentary and electronic material. It also recorded statements from witnesses. Justice Varma was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and present his defence before the committee recorded its findings. "Substantial unexplained Rs 500 denomination currency notes were found in the storeroom situated within the official residential premises at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi. The Judge failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source or ownership thereof," it said. "It is proved that material evidence was not secured or preserved; the evidentiary condition of the storeroom was disturbed before lawful sealing and inspection; and the later non-availability of the currency notes remains unexplained," it added. The panel also examined Justice Varma's explanations, including his reply dated March 22, 2025 and his subsequent stand on the matter. The committee said his explanation did not "exhibit the candour, transparency and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances. It remained evasive and unsatisfactory when tested against the evidence of independent official witnesses and corroborative material". Justice Varma initially denied the allegations but later suggested alternative explanations for the cash found at his residence. He suggested that the money could have been planted or that a conspiracy involving others may have taken place. Fire at Delhi residence triggered inquiry The controversy began on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. Firefighting operations led to the discovery of stacks of cash at the premises, with some reportedly measuring more than 1.5 feet in height. The discovery sparked a major controversy and prompted then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to order an in-house inquiry. Justice Varma was later transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court. His judicial work was also withdrawn while the inquiry was pending.

A Parliament-appointed inquiry panel has found all three charges proved against Justice Yashwant Varma over unexplained cash recovered from his official residence, failure to preserve evidence and evasive explanations.

Parliamentary panel finds Justice Yashwant Varma guilty in cash-at-home row

Justice Yashwant Varma, the former Delhi High Court justice who was transferred to Allahabad High Court after a massive pile of cash was found at his residence last year, has resigned. The former Delhi High Court judge tendered his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on Friday (Apr 10, 2026). In his resignation, the former justice wrote that he did not wish to burden the office with the reasons behind his decision, but expressed "deep anguish" about the decision. His departure comes as he faced an in-house inquiry, with the possibility of parliamentary removal proceedings in connection with the allegations.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-us-ties-marco-rubio-confirms-india-visit-following-productive-high-level-talks-with-vikram-misri-1775799415543">India-US ties: Vikram Misri holds 'productive' high-level talks with Marco Rubio</a><h2>Case against Varma: Massive piles of burnt cash found at Justice's residence</h2>The controversy began on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. Firefighters reportedly discovered a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/massive-cash-pile-found-in-delhi-hc-judges-house-after-fire-breaks-out-justice-yashwant-varma-transferred-8875370">significant stash of cash</a> (estimated in some reports at roughly ₹15 crore) consisting of burnt and partially burnt ₹500 notes in a storeroom.Following the discovery, CJI Sanjiv Khanna convened an urgent collegium meeting to discuss the discovery, and subsequently, the decision to transfer Varma from the Delhi HC was taken pending investigation. The collegium unanimously decided to move Justice Varma back to his parent High Court in Allahabad. Varma previously served in the Allahabad HC before being appointed to the Delhi HC in October 2021.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/isro-accomplishes-second-air-drop-test-of-gaganyaan-capsule-1775795869148">ISRO accomplishes second air drop test of Gaganyaan capsule</a><h2>Proceedings against Varma</h2>The allegations eventually led to an ongoing in-house inquiry and potential parliamentary removal proceedings. A parliamentary committee examining allegations related to the suspected cash haul involving Justice Yashwant Varma held day-to-day proceedings from March 13 to March 21 as part of an impeachment-related inquiry.The hearings followed Justice Varma’s written response to the panel, in which he denied that any cash recovered in the reported incident belonged to him and stated that he was not present at the time of the fire that reportedly led to the discovery of the money.Justice Varma further told the committee that no cash was recovered from his residence, disputing the allegations and reiterating his stand.The parliamentary panel, set up to examine the matter in the context of possible impeachment proceedings, has been reviewing documents, responses and other material on record, and is expected to deliberate on its findings after the hearings conclude.

Why did Justice Yashwant Varma resign? After a massive cash discovery at his residence sparked a storm, the former Delhi High Court judge stepped down. What really happened in this explosive case?

Scroll down to read more.

Justice Yashwant Varma, the former Delhi High Court justice who was transferred to Allahabad High Court after a massive pile of cash was found at his residence last year, has resigned. The former Delhi High Court judge tendered his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on Friday (Apr 10, 2026). In his resignation, the former justice wrote that he did not wish to burden the office with the reasons behind his decision, but expressed "deep anguish" about the decision. His departure comes as he faced an in-house inquiry, with the possibility of parliamentary removal proceedings in connection with the allegations. Also read | India-US ties: Vikram Misri holds 'productive' high-level talks with Marco Rubio Case against Varma: Massive piles of burnt cash found at Justice's residence The controversy began on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. Firefighters reportedly discovered a significant stash of cash (estimated in some reports at roughly ₹15 crore) consisting of burnt and partially burnt ₹500 notes in a storeroom. Following the discovery, CJI Sanjiv Khanna convened an urgent collegium meeting to discuss the discovery, and subsequently, the decision to transfer Varma from the Delhi HC was taken pending investigation. The collegium unanimously decided to move Justice Varma back to his parent High Court in Allahabad. Varma previously served in the Allahabad HC before being appointed to the Delhi HC in October 2021. Also read | ISRO accomplishes second air drop test of Gaganyaan capsule Proceedings against Varma The allegations eventually led to an ongoing in-house inquiry and potential parliamentary removal proceedings. A parliamentary committee examining allegations related to the suspected cash haul involving Justice Yashwant Varma held day-to-day proceedings from March 13 to March 21 as part of an impeachment-related inquiry. The hearings followed Justice Varma’s written response to the panel, in which he denied that any cash recovered in the reported incident belonged to him and stated that he was not present at the time of the fire that reportedly led to the discovery of the money. Justice Varma further told the committee that no cash was recovered from his residence, disputing the allegations and reiterating his stand. The parliamentary panel, set up to examine the matter in the context of possible impeachment proceedings, has been reviewing documents, responses and other material on record, and is expected to deliberate on its findings after the hearings conclude.

Why did Justice Yashwant Varma resign? After a massive cash discovery at his residence sparked a storm, the former Delhi High Court judge stepped down. What really happened in this explosive case?Scroll down to read more.

Justice Yashwant Varma resigns following massive cash scandal. All you need to know

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Tuesday constituted a three-member panel to probe allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, at whose Delhi residence large piles of burnt cash were found in March this year. The Speaker named Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court, Justice Maninder Mohan Shrivastava of the Madras High Court, and BV Acharya, senior advocate of the Karnataka High Court, to the committee. Birla also accepted an impeachment motion against Justice Varma signed by 146 Members of Parliament.“The process of removal of Justice Yashwant Varma should begin. The Parliament is united against corruption. We have accepted the impeachment motion...People have faith in the judiciary,” Birla said.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a> | Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla announces a 3-member panel to probe allegations against High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. He says, &quot;The members of the Committee include Justice Arvind Kumar, Supreme Court Judge, Justice Maninder Mohan Srivastava, Chief Justice… <a href="https://t.co/hKTt4PiZFt">pic.twitter.com/hKTt4PiZFt</a>&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1955159620516720848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

&nbsp;Justice Varma, who could become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office, is being investigated by Parliament under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution over the cash-at-home row.&nbsp;The three-member committee has the power to call for evidence and examine witnesses, and will submit its report to the Speaker, who will place it before the House. If the judge is found guilty, a motion will be put to a vote to impeach Justice Varma, followed by a similar procedure in the Rajya Sabha. The motion will then be sent to the President for approval.&nbsp;The controversy broke out on March 15 after firefighters called to Justice Varma’s official bungalow in New Delhi discovered piles of money that had been burnt by a fire. The discovery raised questions about corruption in the highest levels of the judicial system in the country.&nbsp;Justice Varma denied any link to the cash and called the allegations against him “preposterous,” but the top court set up an in-house panel that recommended his impeachment. The panel’s report was forwarded to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna with the same recommendation.&nbsp;<h2>Supreme Court raps judge&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;Justice Varma then filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the top court panel’s recommendation to remove him, but he kept his identity a secret in the petition and was referred to as ‘XXX’ in court documents. In his writ petition, Justice Varma had offered the two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and AG Masih five reasons why he could not be sacked, including questions over the jurisdiction and authority of the in-house committee to investigate a sitting judge.However, on July 30, the Supreme Court said in its ruling that the judge’s petition was “not worth entertaining” and reproached him.The apex court rapped Justice Varma, saying that his conduct did not inspire confidence, and also defended the CJI’s authority to act on any judicial misconduct, saying he cannot be merely a “post office” but has certain duties to the nation.

The Supreme Court said in its ruling that Justice Yashwant Varma’s petition was “not worth entertaining” and reproached him. The apex court also rapped Justice Varma, saying that his conduct did not inspire confidence.

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Tuesday constituted a three-member panel to probe allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, at whose Delhi residence large piles of burnt cash were found in March this year. The Speaker named Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court, Justice Maninder Mohan Shrivastava of the Madras High Court, and BV Acharya, senior advocate of the Karnataka High Court, to the committee. Birla also accepted an impeachment motion against Justice Varma signed by 146 Members of Parliament. “The process of removal of Justice Yashwant Varma should begin. The Parliament is united against corruption. We have accepted the impeachment motion...People have faith in the judiciary,” Birla said.

The Supreme Court said in its ruling that Justice Yashwant Varma’s petition was “not worth entertaining” and reproached him. The apex court also rapped Justice Varma, saying that his conduct did not inspire confidence.

Speaker Om Birla sets up three-member panel to probe Justice Varma cash row case

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (August 7) dismissed the Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel that recommended his impeachment in the cash discovery row. While hearing the petition, the Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih observed that Justice Varma's conduct does not inspire confidence and his plea should not be entertained.&nbsp;The Supreme Court held that the recommendation delivered by thenChief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and the Judges committee appointed has legal sanction and is constitutionally valid. It ruled Justice Varma's petition "not worth entertaining" and called his &nbsp;conduct 'not inspiring confidence'.&nbsp;The ruling paves the way for the impeachment of Justice Varma process initiated last month.&nbsp;What did Justice Varma say in his defence&nbsp;Justice Varma, in his defence offered five reasons that the two-judge bench chose to decide despite the writ petition found to be non maintainable. Questions over the jurisdiction and authority of the in-house committee to investigate a sitting judge were some of the reasons in his defence.&nbsp;Justice Varma argued that he was denied a fair hearing by the committee that ignored questions he had raised. He also argued that the Supreme Court does not have the power to take disciplinary action against a High Court judge as its tenure is protected by the Constitution.&nbsp;Judges can only be removed from office by an order from the President, who will require consent from Parliament.&nbsp;Justice Varma, if impeached will become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office&nbsp;What is the case&nbsp;Wads of currency notes were found at Justice Varma's official residence when a fire broke out there on March 14.&nbsp;The report of the Supreme Court-appointed committee said several stacks of burnt notes, reportedly as high as 1.5 feet, were found scattered across the storeroom of hi official residence in Delhi.&nbsp;“Keeping in view the direct and electronic evidence on record, this committee is formally of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations, and the misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma,” the report said.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court held that the recommendation delivered by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and the Judges committee appointed has legal sanction.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (August 7) dismissed the Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel that recommended his impeachment in the cash discovery row. While hearing the petition, the Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih observed that Justice Varma's conduct does not inspire confidence and his plea should not be entertained. The Supreme Court held that the recommendation delivered by thenChief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and the Judges committee appointed has legal sanction and is constitutionally valid. It ruled Justice Varma's petition "not worth entertaining" and called his conduct 'not inspiring confidence'. The ruling paves the way for the impeachment of Justice Varma process initiated last month. What did Justice Varma say in his defence Justice Varma, in his defence offered five reasons that the two-judge bench chose to decide despite the writ petition found to be non maintainable. Questions over the jurisdiction and authority of the in-house committee to investigate a sitting judge were some of the reasons in his defence. Justice Varma argued that he was denied a fair hearing by the committee that ignored questions he had raised. He also argued that the Supreme Court does not have the power to take disciplinary action against a High Court judge as its tenure is protected by the Constitution. Judges can only be removed from office by an order from the President, who will require consent from Parliament. Justice Varma, if impeached will become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office What is the case Wads of currency notes were found at Justice Varma's official residence when a fire broke out there on March 14. The report of the Supreme Court-appointed committee said several stacks of burnt notes, reportedly as high as 1.5 feet, were found scattered across the storeroom of hi official residence in Delhi. “Keeping in view the direct and electronic evidence on record, this committee is formally of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations, and the misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma,” the report said.

The Supreme Court held that the recommendation delivered by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and the Judges committee appointed has legal sanction.

'Does not inspire confidence': Justice Yashwant Varma's plea seeking invalidation of panel report rejected

A Supreme Court of India bench, comprising&nbsp;Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, said on Wednesday that even if there had been lapses in the in-house probe procedure in the Justice Yashwant Varma case, they wouldn't impact Parliament's action against the Allahabad High Court judge.&nbsp;The court reserved its verdict on Justice Varma's plea challenging the report of the Supreme Court's three-judge in-house probe panel, which recommended initiating impeachment proceedings against him.&nbsp;"Parliament is not supposed to be guided by what the CJI says; it acts independently," the bench observed.&nbsp;Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered from Justice Varma's official&nbsp;house. He was a&nbsp;sitting judge of the Delhi High Court at that time. Former CJI Sanjeev Khanna, after conducting an internal probe, forwarded a recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister to initiate the impeachment process.&nbsp;Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that the in-house inquiry was procedurally flawed and that the CJI had no authority to recommend impeachment. He argued that the power to recommend a judge's removal rests solely with Parliament.&nbsp;The apex court, however, said that the in-house procedure empowers the Supreme Court to make a recommendation.&nbsp;"This is just a recommendation of which the Supreme Court has power", Justice Datta said.&nbsp;To this, Sibal responded, “Then why go to Parliament? Implying if the Court has already acted upon the issue by recommending impeachment, why does it have to go to the Parliament for a deeper probe?”&nbsp;The bench also remarked that the in-house procedure empowers the committee to assess misconduct and, if warranted, recommend further action. "The CJI is not a post office," the bench noted. "If there is serious material against a judge, the Chief Justice is within his authority to act", it added.

A Supreme Court of India bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, said on Wednesday that even if there had been lapses in the in-house probe procedure in the Justice Yashwant Varma case, they wouldn't impact Parliament's action against the Allahabad High Court judge.

A Supreme Court of India bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, said on Wednesday that even if there had been lapses in the in-house probe procedure in the Justice Yashwant Varma case, they wouldn't impact Parliament's action against the Allahabad High Court judge. The court reserved its verdict on Justice Varma's plea challenging the report of the Supreme Court's three-judge in-house probe panel, which recommended initiating impeachment proceedings against him. "Parliament is not supposed to be guided by what the CJI says; it acts independently," the bench observed. Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered from Justice Varma's official house. He was a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court at that time. Former CJI Sanjeev Khanna, after conducting an internal probe, forwarded a recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister to initiate the impeachment process. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that the in-house inquiry was procedurally flawed and that the CJI had no authority to recommend impeachment. He argued that the power to recommend a judge's removal rests solely with Parliament. The apex court, however, said that the in-house procedure empowers the Supreme Court to make a recommendation. "This is just a recommendation of which the Supreme Court has power", Justice Datta said. To this, Sibal responded, “Then why go to Parliament? Implying if the Court has already acted upon the issue by recommending impeachment, why does it have to go to the Parliament for a deeper probe?” The bench also remarked that the in-house procedure empowers the committee to assess misconduct and, if warranted, recommend further action. "The CJI is not a post office," the bench noted. "If there is serious material against a judge, the Chief Justice is within his authority to act", it added.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that the in-house inquiry was procedurally flawed.

'CJI not post office': Why Supreme Court said this in Justice Yashwant Varma case

On the first day of Indian Parliament's monsoon session, Monday (Jul 21), over 200 MPs from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha submitted notices of motion for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma. For months, the Delhi High Court judge has been embroiled in a controversy involving massive piles of cash. In March 2025, hidden piles of cash were found at his Delhi residence. Now, parliamentarians have submitted notices asking for his removal. As per report,s 145 Lok Sabha members have submitted notices to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. Similarly, 63 Rajya Sabha members have filed notices of motion for his removal to chairman Jagdeep Dhankar.<h2>A "constitutional process"</h2>In a statement, BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad noted that the impeachment motion notice against Varma is a "constitutional process". Confirming the filing of the notice, he said, "This is a constitutional process. The conduct of an individual judge in terms of propriety is equally important for the independence of the judiciary. We have filed our notice in this regard."Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday also confirmed that he has received motion, signed by MPs, for impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma. He noted that it meets the numerical requirement of signing by MPs for setting in motion a process for removal of a High Court judge.<h2>Committee to be formed?</h2>Citing sources in the know, news agency ANI has reported that a committee is likely to be constituted to probe the allegations. This committee would likely include a judge of the Supreme Court, a chief justice from any of the High Courts and a distinguished jurist.<h2>What happened? The burnt wads of cash</h2>On March 14, four to five semi-burnt sacks of Indian currency notes were discovered in Yashwant Varma's Lutyens home following a fire incident. The discovery was made as a fire broke out at his home. As per reports, Justice Yashwant Varma was out of town when a fire broke out at his residence, prompting his family to call the fire brigade and the police.Once the fire brigade extinguished the fire, they discovered a large sum of cash piled inside one of the rooms. The money was recovered by the local police and the case was escalated to senior officials. Eventually, high-ranking officials in the government were alerted.&nbsp;&nbsp;

More than 200 MPs from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have submitted motions to remove Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, after semi-burnt stacks of cash were found at his Lutyens residence in March 2025.

On the first day of Indian Parliament's monsoon session, Monday (Jul 21), over 200 MPs from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha submitted notices of motion for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma. For months, the Delhi High Court judge has been embroiled in a controversy involving massive piles of cash. In March 2025, hidden piles of cash were found at his Delhi residence. Now, parliamentarians have submitted notices asking for his removal. As per report,s 145 Lok Sabha members have submitted notices to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. Similarly, 63 Rajya Sabha members have filed notices of motion for his removal to chairman Jagdeep Dhankar. A "constitutional process" In a statement, BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad noted that the impeachment motion notice against Varma is a "constitutional process". Confirming the filing of the notice, he said, "This is a constitutional process. The conduct of an individual judge in terms of propriety is equally important for the independence of the judiciary. We have filed our notice in this regard." Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday also confirmed that he has received motion, signed by MPs, for impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma. He noted that it meets the numerical requirement of signing by MPs for setting in motion a process for removal of a High Court judge. Committee to be formed? Citing sources in the know, news agency ANI has reported that a committee is likely to be constituted to probe the allegations. This committee would likely include a judge of the Supreme Court, a chief justice from any of the High Courts and a distinguished jurist. What happened? The burnt wads of cash On March 14, four to five semi-burnt sacks of Indian currency notes were discovered in Yashwant Varma's Lutyens home following a fire incident. The discovery was made as a fire broke out at his home. As per reports, Justice Yashwant Varma was out of town when a fire broke out at his residence, prompting his family to call the fire brigade and the police. Once the fire brigade extinguished the fire, they discovered a large sum of cash piled inside one of the rooms. The money was recovered by the local police and the case was escalated to senior officials. Eventually, high-ranking officials in the government were alerted.

More than 200 MPs from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have submitted motions to remove Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, after semi-burnt stacks of cash were found at his Lutyens residence in March 2025.

Fire, burnt cash, and now impeachment: Here's why 200+ MPs submitted notice for Justice Yashwant Varma's removal on day one of Monsoon session

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai pulled up a lawyer in the Supreme Court on Monday when he referred to Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who is facing impeachment after a massive cash recovery from his official residence in New Delhi in March following a fire, as just “Varma”. Justice Varma was then a judge of the Delhi High Court and was later moved to the Allahabad High Court. Advocate Mathews Nedumpara was urging the court for an urgent hearing on his petition seeking an FIR against Justice Varma.After the recovery of half-burnt cash, a Supreme Court-appointed in-house committee found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct for the recovery of a huge stash of cash in the storeroom of his official residence. &nbsp;On May 8, the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote to the President and the Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal by initiating impeachment proceedings against the judge.&nbsp;&nbsp;Last week, Justice Varma moved the Supreme Court, challenging the in-house committee report and seeking to declare Justice Khanna’s recommendation for his removal as unconstitutional.&nbsp;Nedumpara sought urgent listing of his petition and said he had moved it for the third time. At one point, he referred to the judge as “Varma”.&nbsp;<h2>‘Is he your friend? How do you address him? Have some decorum’</h2>&nbsp;Expressing his resentment, the Chief Justice said, “If you want me to dismiss now, I will dismiss it now! Is he your friend? He is still Justice Varma. How do you address him? Have some decorum. You are referring to a learned judge. He is still a judge of the court. how are you referring to him as ‘Varma’?”“I don’t think that greatness can apply to him,” Nedumpara responded.&nbsp;When the lawyer insisted that the matter be listed, the CJI said, “Don’t dictate to the Court.”Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also objected to Nedumpara reference and said that he was still a judge.&nbsp;Nedumpara’s petition seeks directions to the Delhi Police to register an FIR against Justice Varma and investigate the cash recovery. It says that recovery of currency notes on this scale is a cognisable offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the law against money laundering.On March 14, firefighters and cops rushed to the judge’s official residence after a fire call and found a large amount of half-burnt currency notes in plastic bags. Nedumpara’s petition said police officers clicked photos and shot videos at the spot, but did not register an FIR. This is because the K Veeraswamy vs Government of India judgment states that the Chief Justice of India’s permission is necessary to register an FIR against a judge.&nbsp;The lawyer’s petition states that the three-member inquiry committee formed by the Supreme Court is “unconstitutional” and interferes in the role of the police.

On May 8, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna wrote to the President and the PM recommending Justice Varma’s removal by initiating impeachment proceedings. Last week, Justice Varma moved the SC, challenging the committee report and the recommendation for his removal.

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai pulled up a lawyer in the Supreme Court on Monday when he referred to Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who is facing impeachment after a massive cash recovery from his official residence in New Delhi in March following a fire, as just “Varma”. Justice Varma was then a judge of the Delhi High Court and was later moved to the Allahabad High Court. Advocate Mathews Nedumpara was urging the court for an urgent hearing on his petition seeking an FIR against Justice Varma. After the recovery of half-burnt cash, a Supreme Court-appointed in-house committee found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct for the recovery of a huge stash of cash in the storeroom of his official residence. On May 8, the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote to the President and the Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal by initiating impeachment proceedings against the judge. Last week, Justice Varma moved the Supreme Court, challenging the in-house committee report and seeking to declare Justice Khanna’s recommendation for his removal as unconstitutional. Nedumpara sought urgent listing of his petition and said he had moved it for the third time. At one point, he referred to the judge as “Varma”. ‘Is he your friend? How do you address him? Have some decorum’ Expressing his resentment, the Chief Justice said, “If you want me to dismiss now, I will dismiss it now! Is he your friend? He is still Justice Varma. How do you address him? Have some decorum. You are referring to a learned judge. He is still a judge of the court. how are you referring to him as ‘Varma’?” “I don’t think that greatness can apply to him,” Nedumpara responded. When the lawyer insisted that the matter be listed, the CJI said, “Don’t dictate to the Court.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also objected to Nedumpara reference and said that he was still a judge. Nedumpara’s petition seeks directions to the Delhi Police to register an FIR against Justice Varma and investigate the cash recovery. It says that recovery of currency notes on this scale is a cognisable offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the law against money laundering. On March 14, firefighters and cops rushed to the judge’s official residence after a fire call and found a large amount of half-burnt currency notes in plastic bags. Nedumpara’s petition said police officers clicked photos and shot videos at the spot, but did not register an FIR. This is because the K Veeraswamy vs Government of India judgment states that the Chief Justice of India’s permission is necessary to register an FIR against a judge. The lawyer’s petition states that the three-member inquiry committee formed by the Supreme Court is “unconstitutional” and interferes in the role of the police.

On May 8, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna wrote to the President and the PM recommending Justice Varma’s removal by initiating impeachment proceedings. Last week, Justice Varma moved the SC, challenging the committee report and the recommendation for his removal.

‘He is still a learned judge’: CJI Gavai objects when lawyer refers to cash row judge as ‘Varma’

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said on Friday that all political parties are on the same page regarding the move to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma after sacks of burnt currency notes were found at the official residence in March. Justice Varma was asked to resign but he refused, following which a recommendation for his impeachment was sent to the Union government. “I have spoken to all the senior leaders of different political parties. I will also get in touch with some of the single-MP parties because I do not want to leave out any member. So it becomes a unified stand of the Parliament of India,” Rijiju told PTI news agency in an interview.&nbsp;The minister further said that the initiative is not government-driven but comes from Members of Parliament across party lines, including from the Congress, who support the motion to remove Justice Varma.&nbsp;<h2>‘Corruption in judiciary an extremely sensitive, serious matter’</h2>&nbsp;“Corruption in the judiciary is an extremely sensitive and serious matter, because the judiciary is where people get justice. If there is corruption in the judiciary, it is a serious concern for everybody. That is why the motion for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma is to be signed by all the political parties,” Rijiju said.The minister welcomed the support of the Congress, saying, “I am happy that they understood things as they should be, because no party can be seen to be standing with a corrupt judge or protecting a corrupt judge.”&nbsp;Rijiju emphasised the need for unity on the issue, saying, “When it comes to corruption in the judiciary, we have to stand together. There cannot be any partisan attitude and it should not be made a political issue.”The Congress also confirmed that all its MPs will support the motion against Justice Varma.&nbsp;The parliamentary affairs minister said that a motion for a judge’s removal requires signatures from at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. The petition is then submitted to the chair, who will inform the House and initiate an inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act.The process includes a three-month-long investigation, followed by a discussion in both Houses of Parliament based on the enquiry report.&nbsp;<h2>Misconduct serious enough to warrant his removal: Probe panel</h2>&nbsp;The move to impeach Justice Varma follows a fire incident in March at his Lutyens’ Delhi residence, which led to the discovery of sacks containing half-burnt cash in the outhouse. At the time, Justice Varma served as a judge in the Delhi High Court.He was later repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, but no judicial work was assigned to him. An in-house inquiry ordered by then Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna found that the judge and his family had covert or active control over the storeroom where the money was found. The panel concluded the misconduct was serious enough to warrant his removal.Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing, but the findings of the inquiry proved otherwise.&nbsp;Responding to former law minister Kapil Sibal’s remarks comparing Justice Varma to Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, who recently made a controversial statement, Rijiju dismissed the criticism.“We will not be driven by one lawyer-MP’s agenda. We are not here to set an agenda or drive an agenda. We are working purely in the interest of the country,” he said.Calling Sibal “a very average lawyer,” Rijiju added, “He cannot guide the Parliament of India. The Parliament of India will be guided by all the members of Parliament.”He further said, “Sibal does not realise that many MPs have gone far beyond him in terms of understanding, intellectual capability and knowledge of law.”

The parliamentary affairs minister said that a motion for a judge’s removal requires signatures from at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. The petition is then submitted to the chair, who will inform the House and initiate an inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said on Friday that all political parties are on the same page regarding the move to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma after sacks of burnt currency notes were found at the official residence in March. Justice Varma was asked to resign but he refused, following which a recommendation for his impeachment was sent to the Union government. “I have spoken to all the senior leaders of different political parties. I will also get in touch with some of the single-MP parties because I do not want to leave out any member. So it becomes a unified stand of the Parliament of India,” Rijiju told PTI news agency in an interview. The minister further said that the initiative is not government-driven but comes from Members of Parliament across party lines, including from the Congress, who support the motion to remove Justice Varma. ‘Corruption in judiciary an extremely sensitive, serious matter’ “Corruption in the judiciary is an extremely sensitive and serious matter, because the judiciary is where people get justice. If there is corruption in the judiciary, it is a serious concern for everybody. That is why the motion for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma is to be signed by all the political parties,” Rijiju said. The minister welcomed the support of the Congress, saying, “I am happy that they understood things as they should be, because no party can be seen to be standing with a corrupt judge or protecting a corrupt judge.” Rijiju emphasised the need for unity on the issue, saying, “When it comes to corruption in the judiciary, we have to stand together. There cannot be any partisan attitude and it should not be made a political issue.” The Congress also confirmed that all its MPs will support the motion against Justice Varma. The parliamentary affairs minister said that a motion for a judge’s removal requires signatures from at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. The petition is then submitted to the chair, who will inform the House and initiate an inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act. The process includes a three-month-long investigation, followed by a discussion in both Houses of Parliament based on the enquiry report. Misconduct serious enough to warrant his removal: Probe panel The move to impeach Justice Varma follows a fire incident in March at his Lutyens’ Delhi residence, which led to the discovery of sacks containing half-burnt cash in the outhouse. At the time, Justice Varma served as a judge in the Delhi High Court. He was later repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, but no judicial work was assigned to him. An in-house inquiry ordered by then Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna found that the judge and his family had covert or active control over the storeroom where the money was found. The panel concluded the misconduct was serious enough to warrant his removal. Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing, but the findings of the inquiry proved otherwise. Responding to former law minister Kapil Sibal’s remarks comparing Justice Varma to Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, who recently made a controversial statement, Rijiju dismissed the criticism. “We will not be driven by one lawyer-MP’s agenda. We are not here to set an agenda or drive an agenda. We are working purely in the interest of the country,” he said. Calling Sibal “a very average lawyer,” Rijiju added, “He cannot guide the Parliament of India. The Parliament of India will be guided by all the members of Parliament.” He further said, “Sibal does not realise that many MPs have gone far beyond him in terms of understanding, intellectual capability and knowledge of law.”

The parliamentary affairs minister said that a motion for a judge’s removal requires signatures from at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. The petition is then submitted to the chair, who will inform the House and initiate an inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act.

All parties backing Justice Varma’s impeachment over cash row: Kiren Rijiju

Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday underlined the government's resolve to take all political parties on board in moving an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, saying corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism".&nbsp;He said the government wants the exercise aimed at axing Justice Varma, embroiled in a case of alleged corruption and indicted by a Supreme Court-appointed committee, a "collaborative effort".&nbsp;Rijiju told reporters here that he has already initiated discussions with all political parties to bring the motion in Parliament's Monsoon session, starting from July 21, against the Allahabad High Court judge.&nbsp;He said the government wants all parties to "jointly" move the motion to remove Justice Varma.&nbsp;Rijiju said he will reach out to smaller parties, while all major parties have already been informed about the plan to bring a motion of impeachment against Justice Varma.&nbsp;"The government feels that the matter related to corruption is not one political party's agenda. It is a stand of all parties to fight against the menace of corruption, whether it is the judiciary or any other space," he said.&nbsp;The minister underlined that the government would like to take all political parties on board on the issue as corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism".He said most parties will revert after discussing the issue internally.&nbsp;To a query, Rijiju said the decision on whether the motion will be brought in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha will be taken based on the business of each House.&nbsp;According to the Judges Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist".&nbsp;Rijiju said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna has already submitted its report.&nbsp;"So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said.&nbsp;The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided.&nbsp;"As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard.&nbsp;He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion.&nbsp;Rijiju hoped that the removal proceedings will be passed in the two Houses in the Monsoon session beginning July 21 and ending August 12.&nbsp;A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse.&nbsp;Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The then CJI Khanna is believed to have prodded him to resign but Justice Varma dug in his heels. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent cadre, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work.&nbsp;Justice Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister, recommending the impeachment motion, which is the procedure for axing members of the higher judiciary from service. &nbsp;

Govt wants all parties on board for Justice Yashwant Varma's impeachment motion 

Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday underlined the government's resolve to take all political parties on board in moving an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, saying corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism". He said the government wants the exercise aimed at axing Justice Varma, embroiled in a case of alleged corruption and indicted by a Supreme Court-appointed committee, a "collaborative effort". Rijiju told reporters here that he has already initiated discussions with all political parties to bring the motion in Parliament's Monsoon session, starting from July 21, against the Allahabad High Court judge. He said the government wants all parties to "jointly" move the motion to remove Justice Varma. Rijiju said he will reach out to smaller parties, while all major parties have already been informed about the plan to bring a motion of impeachment against Justice Varma. "The government feels that the matter related to corruption is not one political party's agenda. It is a stand of all parties to fight against the menace of corruption, whether it is the judiciary or any other space," he said. The minister underlined that the government would like to take all political parties on board on the issue as corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism". He said most parties will revert after discussing the issue internally. To a query, Rijiju said the decision on whether the motion will be brought in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha will be taken based on the business of each House. According to the Judges Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Rijiju said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Rijiju hoped that the removal proceedings will be passed in the two Houses in the Monsoon session beginning July 21 and ending August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The then CJI Khanna is believed to have prodded him to resign but Justice Varma dug in his heels. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent cadre, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Justice Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister, recommending the impeachment motion, which is the procedure for axing members of the higher judiciary from service.

Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday underlined the government's resolve to take all political parties on board in moving an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, saying corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism".

Govt wants all parties on board for Justice Yashwant Varma's impeachment motion

The three-member committee, which was set up to probe allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma after a huge pile of cash was recovered from the premises within his official residence, has submitted its report on the row to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. Justice Varma landed in the controversy after the discovery of a huge pile of burnt cash in the storeroom attached to his official bungalow in the national capital after the fire brigade had gone there to douse a blaze on March 14.&nbsp; After the row and several protests by lawyers, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, where he took oath as a judge in April. However, as per the Supreme Court&rsquo;s directions, he will not be assigned any judicial work.
&ldquo;The three-member Committee consisting of Mr Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Mr Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Ms Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, constituted for conducting an inquiry into the allegations against Mr Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge, has submitted its report dated 03.05.2025 to the Chief Justice of India on 04.05.2025,&rdquo; the Supreme Court said in a press release issued on Monday (May 5).
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-you-all-desire-will-happen-assures-defence-minister-rajnath-singh-on-pahalgam-retaliation-9032695" rel="noopener" target="_blank">&lsquo;What you all desire will happen,&rsquo; assures defence minister Rajnath Singh on Pahalgam retaliation</a> While Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing, CJI Khanna constituted a 3-member committee in the last week of March to conduct an inquiry into the cash recovery episode.&nbsp; The investigators collected burnt notes from the scene of the fire, got videos of the firefighting tested at forensic labs, and asked Justice Varma and his staff to preserve their phones and call records. All judicial work was taken away from Justice Varma, who was the second senior-most judge of the Delhi High Court, before he was sent to Allahabad.&nbsp;
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-a-failed-state-gen-munirs-remarks-nonsensical-oppn-leader-asaduddin-owaisi-9032050" rel="noopener" target="_blank">&lsquo;Pakistan a failed state, Gen Munir&rsquo;s remarks nonsensical&rsquo;: Oppn leader Asaduddin Owaisi</a> The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, recommended to the Centre to repatriate Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court. He was shifted to Uttar Pradesh despite very strong opposition by the bar associations in Lucknow and Allahabad. In April, the Supreme Court rejected a petition seeking an FIR against Justice Varma, calling the plea &ldquo;premature&rdquo;.

India News: While Justice Yashwant Varma denied any wrongdoing, CJI Sanjeev Khanna constituted a 3-member committee in the last week of March to conduct an inquiry into the cash recovery episode.

The three-member committee, which was set up to probe allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma after a huge pile of cash was recovered from the premises within his official residence, has submitted its report on the row to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. Justice Varma landed in the controversy after the discovery of a huge pile of burnt cash in the storeroom attached to his official bungalow in the national capital after the fire brigade had gone there to douse a blaze on March 14. After the row and several protests by lawyers, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, where he took oath as a judge in April. However, as per the Supreme Court’s directions, he will not be assigned any judicial work. “The three-member Committee consisting of Mr Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Mr Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Ms Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, constituted for conducting an inquiry into the allegations against Mr Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge, has submitted its report dated 03.05.2025 to the Chief Justice of India on 04.05.2025,” the Supreme Court said in a press release issued on Monday (May 5). Also Read | ‘What you all desire will happen,’ assures defence minister Rajnath Singh on Pahalgam retaliation While Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing, CJI Khanna constituted a 3-member committee in the last week of March to conduct an inquiry into the cash recovery episode. The investigators collected burnt notes from the scene of the fire, got videos of the firefighting tested at forensic labs, and asked Justice Varma and his staff to preserve their phones and call records. All judicial work was taken away from Justice Varma, who was the second senior-most judge of the Delhi High Court, before he was sent to Allahabad. Also Read | ‘Pakistan a failed state, Gen Munir’s remarks nonsensical’: Oppn leader Asaduddin Owaisi The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, recommended to the Centre to repatriate Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court. He was shifted to Uttar Pradesh despite very strong opposition by the bar associations in Lucknow and Allahabad. In April, the Supreme Court rejected a petition seeking an FIR against Justice Varma, calling the plea “premature”.

Cash row: SC-appointed probe panel submits report on allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to hear the petition seeking an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma to investigate cash recovery at his house and said there are plenty of options available after the in-house inquiry report is out.

Supreme Court denies FIR plea against Justice Yashwant Varma

The Union government on Friday approved the transfer of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma to his parent Allahabad High Court in the cash haul case. The government notified the repatriation, acting on the March 24 recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium. Justice Varma has been directed to assume his position, but the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court has been asked not to assign any judicial work to him for the time being as a judge there. After the government&rsquo;s notification, Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna issued a mandate for the Allahabad high court chief justice not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma, pending the inquiry. Additionally, the Centre also approved the repatriation of another Delhi High Court judge, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, to the Allahabad High Court. The repatriation recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium had also been pending.
Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/why-are-muslims-in-india-wearing-black-armbands-during-alvida-namaz-8900835">Why are Muslims in India wearing black armbands during Alvida namaz?</a>
In November 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by CJI Sanjeev Khanna and also comprising Justices BR Gavai and Suryakant, had recommended Justice Singh&rsquo;s repatriation to his parent court.
Both, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Yashwant Sharma had been transferred to the Delhi High Court in October 2021.
The Collegium had recommended Justice Varma&rsquo;s repatriation to the Allahabad High Court after the recovery of a cash pile from his residential premises during a fire incident on March 14. Following the incident, the Delhi High Court registry had also withdrawn all judicial work assigned to Justice Varma. The CJI has already constituted a three-member panel to conduct a detailed probe into the cash pile recovery that sent shockwaves in legal circles. The probe is expected to assess the allegations and determine whether Justice Varma&rsquo;s continuation as a judge is tenable.
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/yeshu-yeshu-pastor-found-guilty-in-2018-sexual-harassment-case-by-punjab-court-8900478" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&lsquo;Yeshu Yeshu pastor&rsquo; found guilty in 2018 sexual harassment case by Punjab court</a>
Justice Varma has dismissed the charges and claims that he is being defamed in the press.
However, the decision of his transfer by the Supreme Court Collegium was met with protests by the Allahabad Bar Association, which started an indefinite strike saying it would not tolerate judges facing corruption charges and urged the CJI to withdraw Justice Varma&rsquo;s transfer recommendation. The Allahabad Bar Association is demanding his impeachment instead.
Justice Varma landed in a controversy after firefighters responding to a fire at his Tughlak Road residence on March 14 found stacks of cash, some of which were allegedly charred. The incident led to widespread consternation and calls for a thorough investigation into the matter.
Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/mamata-banerjee-heckled-during-oxford-university-speech-questioned-on-rg-rape-murder-case-8899764" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">Mamata Banerjee heckled during Oxford University speech, questioned on RG rape-murder case</a>

India News: The Collegium had recommended Justice Varma’s repatriation to the Allahabad High Court after the recovery of a cash pile from his residential premises during a fire incident on March 14.

The Union government on Friday approved the transfer of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma to his parent Allahabad High Court in the cash haul case. The government notified the repatriation, acting on the March 24 recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium. Justice Varma has been directed to assume his position, but the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court has been asked not to assign any judicial work to him for the time being as a judge there. After the government’s notification, Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna issued a mandate for the Allahabad high court chief justice not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma, pending the inquiry. Additionally, the Centre also approved the repatriation of another Delhi High Court judge, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, to the Allahabad High Court. The repatriation recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium had also been pending. Also Read | Why are Muslims in India wearing black armbands during Alvida namaz? In November 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by CJI Sanjeev Khanna and also comprising Justices BR Gavai and Suryakant, had recommended Justice Singh’s repatriation to his parent court. Both, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Yashwant Sharma had been transferred to the Delhi High Court in October 2021. The Collegium had recommended Justice Varma’s repatriation to the Allahabad High Court after the recovery of a cash pile from his residential premises during a fire incident on March 14. Following the incident, the Delhi High Court registry had also withdrawn all judicial work assigned to Justice Varma. The CJI has already constituted a three-member panel to conduct a detailed probe into the cash pile recovery that sent shockwaves in legal circles. The probe is expected to assess the allegations and determine whether Justice Varma’s continuation as a judge is tenable. Also Read | ‘Yeshu Yeshu pastor’ found guilty in 2018 sexual harassment case by Punjab court Justice Varma has dismissed the charges and claims that he is being defamed in the press. However, the decision of his transfer by the Supreme Court Collegium was met with protests by the Allahabad Bar Association, which started an indefinite strike saying it would not tolerate judges facing corruption charges and urged the CJI to withdraw Justice Varma’s transfer recommendation. The Allahabad Bar Association is demanding his impeachment instead. Justice Varma landed in a controversy after firefighters responding to a fire at his Tughlak Road residence on March 14 found stacks of cash, some of which were allegedly charred. The incident led to widespread consternation and calls for a thorough investigation into the matter. Also read | Mamata Banerjee heckled during Oxford University speech, questioned on RG rape-murder case

Union govt clears Justice Varma’s transfer, HC told not to assign him judicial work

Supreme Court refuses to examine plea for FIR against justice Yashwant Varma

In India, the probe continues into the alleged discovery of a cash pile at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma. According to reports, the three-judge panel will examine the first responders to the fire in the storeroom. Also on the list of people to be examined are the security staff and domestic staff at the judge's residence over the past six months.

Cash-at-home row: Panel to interrogate security personnel & domestic staff

justice-yashwant-varma

Justice Yashwant Varma, News on Justice Yashwant Varma, stories on Justice Yashwant Varma, articles on Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice Yashwant Varma stories at Wion, Justice Yashwant Varma news, Justice Yashwant Varma latest news

justice yashwant-varma

Parliamentary panel finds Justice Yashwant Varma guilty in cash-at-home row

Justice Yashwant Varma resigns following massive cash scandal

Speaker sets up three-member panel to probe Justice Varma cash row case

Justice Varma's plea seeking invalidation of panel report rejected by SC

'CJI not post office': Why Supreme Court said this in Justice Varma case

200+ MPs submit notice for Justice Varma's removal on day 1 of Monsoon session

‘He is still a learned judge, ’ says CJI as lawyer calls cash row judge ‘Varma’

All parties backing Justice Varma’s impeachment over cash row: Kiren Rijiju

Govt wants all parties on board for Justice Yashwant Varma's impeachment motion

Cash row: SC-appointed probe panel submits report on allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma

Supreme Court denies FIR plea against Justice Yashwant Varma

Union govt clears Justice Varma’s transfer, HC told not to assign him judicial work

Supreme Court refuses to examine plea for FIR against justice Yashwant Varma

Cash-at-home row: Panel to interrogate security personnel & domestic staff