The three-member committee, formed under the Judges Inquiry Act and led by Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, found that all the charges against Justice Yashwant Varma are “proved”.

The Lok Sabha panel found that Justice Varma’s explanation remained “evasive and unsatisfactory” and he “failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation on the presence and ownership of cash found in store room of his residence”.

“The Committee accordingly submits this report, together with the record of proceedings, documents, exhibits and material forming part of the inquiry, for such further action as may be considered in accordance with law,” the report said.

The Secretaries General of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha laid the report in both their Houses, respectively. The report is in two volumes along with oral and documentary evidence recorded during the course of the investigation.

Also read: Justice Yashwant Varma row: The future of inquiry amid his resignation 

The three-member probe panel had submitted its findings to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in May.

A fire broke out in the official residence of Justice Varma on the night of March 14, 2025. Firefighters called to put out the blaze allegedly discovered massive amounts of burnt currency in a storeroom.

Justice Varma has since resigned, and removal proceedings against him have virtually become infructuous. His resignation, however, has not yet been notified by the Law Ministry.

He was a judge of the Delhi High Court and repatriated to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, following the controversy.

An in-house committee constituted by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna concluded that Justice Varma had “active or tacit control” over the specific storeroom where the cash was hidden.

In July 2025, over 200 MPs signed a motion to impeach (removal by Parliament) the judge.

In August last year, Mr. Birla constituted the three-member Judges Inquiry Committee to look into the charges.

People aware of the process to appoint and remove Supreme Court and High Court judges cited a top court judgment to say a judge is “deemed to have resigned” once he or she tenders resignation to the President and “circulates” its copy (makes it public).

A judge’s resignation is not “subject to acceptance” by the President.

According to the procedure, the president gives “formal acceptance”, following which it is notified by the Department of Justice in the Law Ministry.

(With inputs from PTI)