Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has withdrawn from the proceedings of the inquiry committee set up by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to investigate the charges against him following the alleged discovery of burnt cash from his residence in the national capital during a blaze in March 2025.
In a letter dated April 9 to the Committee, Justice Varma while rejecting the allegations against him said, “I withdraw with the deepest sadness, conscious of the gravity of my decision and 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.”
Justice Varma who also resigned as High Court judge on April 9 said “I have been subjected to a vilification campaign for over a year based on unfounded allegations which would have never met even the bare threshold known in law on the basis of which a court would have deemed it appropriate to take cognizance in ordinary circumstances”
His letter said “in my entire judicial career as a Judge of a High Court spanning over 13 years, not once had any allegation of corruption or judicial impropriety been levelled against me. It is pertinent to note that till date, far from the proceedings being based upon even a vestige of evidence of illegal gratification or of judicial functioning being influenced by a corrupt motive, they are not even founded upon an allegation of that nature.”
He also raised doubts on the findings of the In-House Committee (IHC) inquiry by a panel constituted by the then Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
“The present proceedings before this Hon’ble Committee constituted in August 2025 were preceded by an In-House Committee…inquiry conducted between 22.03.2025 and 04.05.2025. Unfortunately witnesses who appeared before the” Committee “were not examined in my presence, nor was I afforded any opportunity to cross-examine them”, he said adding the IHC submitted its Report dated 04.05.2025.”
He said that “out of the 54 witnesses who had appeared before the IHC, 27 were dropped without any explanation being furnished. Many of those dropped were witnesses whose testimony was not unfavourable to me, and which would have provided a more complete picture of the events.”
Justice Varma said “the proceedings initiated against me, whether they be before the” In-House inquiry committee “or for that matter even the present enquiry, have all proceeded on unstated suggestions, insinuations and imputations requiring me to disprove assumed facts and innumerable presumptions.”
He contended that “this has resulted not only in a reversal of the burden of proof as we commonly understand but also in placing upon me the onerous obligation of proving multiple negatives.”
His letter said, “the undisputed factual position that I have consistently set out from the very beginning is that the storeroom was a detached structure adjacent to the staff quarters, physically separated by boundary walls from the family living quarters and my office. It was accessible from the back gate of the premises, which was not manned by any security. It was regularly used and accessed by domestic staff, maintenance personnel and others for routine chores and for storing ordinary items such as unused furniture, bottles, crockery, mattresses, used carpets, old speakers, garden implements and CPWD material. The storeroom was usually kept unlocked and, even when locked, the key was never in my possession or under my instructions. I myself had visited the storeroom only four or five times in the entire two years of my stay.”
Justice Varma said “the allegations” against him, “appear to suggest that residents of government bungalows must shoulder an onerous duty of care and thus be aware of and be held responsible for all offending articles/ material that may be found or discovered in any corner of such premises irrespective of whether it be within their knowledge or placed there with their consent. The occupier is thus expected to be aware and answerable for anything that may be found in any nook or corner of such premises.” He added that is leaving it to posterity to judge whether such an obligation can ever be discharged or be justifiably placed upon an occupant of such premises.