In a strongly worded letter to the inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha, Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma claimed that the proceedings against him had been vitiated by “injustice” from the very beginning, asserting that history would one day judge the way the Constitutional Court judge was treated.
The letter, dated April 9, was sent on the same day Justice Varma tendered his resignation to President Draupadi Murmu, effectively ending the parliamentary inquiry into allegations arising from the recovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi following a March 2025 fire incident.
In his 13-page letter, Justice Varma asserted that the proceedings against him before the commission were marred by serious procedural lapses, absence of reliable evidence, and a “predetermined” approach that led to his public discredit even before he was heard. The committee comprises Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Shri Chandrashekar and senior advocate P V Acharya.
The letter, seen by HT, provided a detailed critique of how the investigation was conducted, arguing that the process itself fell short of the standards of fairness expected in proceedings involving a Constitutional Court judge.
He stressed that the investigation was “characterized by injustice from its beginning,” noting that the outcome seemed preordained and that the process had become a formality and not a real fact-finding exercise.
The judge complained that he was not given a meaningful and effective opportunity to defend himself, alleging that key procedural safeguards, which were fundamental to ensuring fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings, were either watered down or ignored. According to him, the way the investigation proceeded created the impression that his guilt was presumed from the beginning.
Justice Varma’s letter largely concerned what he described as the absence of reliable and legally defensible evidence. He questioned the evidentiary basis of the proceedings, in particular the reliance on video recordings allegedly showing cash at his official residence. He also indicated that these recordings were made in his absence, without his knowledge, and without any official procedures to ensure their authenticity or safety.
Raising concerns about the chain of custody, he pointed out that the materials relied upon by the committee lacked the necessary guarantees to inspire confidence. He also stressed that no direct link had been found between him and the alleged cash, raising questions about the basic premise of the investigation.
The letter claimed that he was not given adequate opportunity to test the evidence against him or effectively present his version of events, along with suggesting that the process lacked transparency, with crucial steps occurring without his full knowledge or involvement.
Much of the letter was devoted to what Justice Varma described as public “slander” in the aftermath of the incident.
He pointed to the rapid spread of video clips and the emergence of a “sensational narrative” that depicted him as guilty without any judgement. He pointed out that the entry of such materials into the public domain, including their placement on the website of the Supreme Court of India, only deepens the bias against him.
Justice Varma regretted that this trial by the media, coupled with the manner in which the investigation was conducted, had effectively eroded the presumption of innocence and caused irreparable damage to his reputation.
On the merits, Justice Varma reiterated his categorical denial of any connection with the alleged cash discovered in his house after a fire incident in March 2025.
He confirmed that the warehouse in question was not under his direct use and that the events that led to its recovery occurred in his absence. He also confirmed that no evidence was presented proving his ownership, possession, or knowledge of the money.
He concluded his letter by saying: “I withdraw with deep sadness, aware of the seriousness of my decision and hope that one day history will record the injustice with which the Supreme Court judge was treated and which has characterized this entire episode from its beginning.”
