Lok Sabha Panel: Justice Varma's Withdrawal Did Not Halt Inquiry

A Lok Sabha committee has concluded that a statutory inquiry into charges against former judge Justice Yashwant Varma could not be terminated by his withdrawal from the proceedings. The committee's report, tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, found the charges against Justice Varma "proved," describing his explanations as "evasive and unsatisfactory." The discovery of burnt currency notes at Justice Varma's official residence occurred in the national capital while he was a judge of the Delhi High Court.

What Happened

Justice Varma, a former Allahabad High Court judge, informed the three-member committee of his decision to withdraw from its proceedings on April 9, the same day he resigned as a judge. He also sent parallel communications to the President and the Chief Justice of India. The committee stated that Justice Varma's withdrawal came at a critical juncture when he was expected to present evidence for his defence. The panel asserted that a statutory inquiry's continuation does not depend on the "unilateral" decision of a judge under investigation, especially once substantial evidence has been recorded.

Key Facts

• A three-member committee investigated the discovery of 'burnt currency notes' at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma.
• Justice Varma withdrew from the committee's proceedings on April 9, the same day he resigned as a judge.
• The committee's report was tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, August 12, 2026.
• The report found the charges against Justice Varma "proved" and described his explanations as "evasive and unsatisfactory."
• The discovery of currency notes occurred in the national capital when Justice Varma was a Delhi High Court judge.
• Justice Varma cited procedural unfairness, reversal of burden, and non-availability of CCTV footage as reasons for his withdrawal.
• The committee stated that Justice Varma withdrew at the stage where he was required to produce evidence for his defence.
• The committee noted that articles of charges had been framed, defence statements received, nine witnesses examined, and witnesses cross-examined on behalf of Justice Varma prior to his withdrawal.

Background

The committee rebutted Justice Varma's criticisms, stating that "silence may permit a partial account to assume the character of the whole." It emphasized that Justice Varma ought to have entered the witness box to deny the charge rather than abandoning participation. The committee maintained that the inquiry proceedings were continuous and had moved beyond mere procedural arrangements into the evidentiary stage, with substantial completion. The report indicated that Justice Varma had participated through advocates, contested procedures, and cross-examined witnesses before his withdrawal.