You’ve already seen the videos and the photos that went viral, first on WhatsApp groups and then on social media. You’ve probably heard this line uttered by an unknown voice expressing some mix of shock and bemusement at the piles of wet and burnt currency scattered in a dingy storeroom.
Now, an Inquiry Committee (IC) set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, has confirmed officially what we all suspected — Justice Yashwant Varma (now “resigned”) had unaccounted cash in his official residence and got it disposed of when the videos and photos started circulating. This, along with his evasive, unsatisfactory answers to the IC, has been deemed to be proven misconduct by the IC on three separate charges. We also now know that the immortal lines uttered in the video belong to Manoj Kumar Mehlawat, Station Officer of the Delhi Fire Service.
The IC has confirmed the initial findings of the In-House Committee (comprising three High Court judges) which was constituted in the immediate aftermath of the incident. The In-House Committee had found that no fewer than 10 witnesses reported seeing large quantities of cash in the storeroom, this storeroom was within the residential premises and under the control of Varma, and that the cash was removed from the storeroom during the night after the fire was brought under control.
The Record Against Varma
The IC has built on the preliminary work of the In-House Committee taking more detailed eyewitness testimony, calling for evidence and also getting forensic reports about the phones.
Reading the IC report one gets the sense that extra pains were taken to make sure that the evidence against Varma was unimpeachable. Witnesses are allowed to be cross-examined by Varma’s lawyers and even the Call Data Records of the police and fire officials in the area pulled out to make sure that there is an objective log of the movements of the police and fire officials. The IC’s report is a good example of how eyewitness testimony, documentary, and forensic evidence can be brought together in a mutually enforcing way to corroborate a series of events.
Yet, all of this was nearly derailed when, earlier this year, Varma withdrew from the proceedings and tendered his resignation as a judge of the Allahabad High Court.
The Problem With Varma’s Version
In withdrawing from the proceedings, Varma wrote a long letter accusing the IC of depriving him of the principles of natural justice. His objections fall broadly into three categories—witnesses whose testimony was favourable were dropped by the IC, procedural unfairness in not giving him enough time to respond and evidence that would have exonerated him was not furnished.
The IC puts paid to the story Varma tried to spin in his letter. Varma’s resignation and “withdrawal” came just before he was called upon to produce his witnesses and substantiate his theory of what happened on the night of 14th and 15th of March, 2025.
This would have been a challenge for Varma since, as the IC report notes, his story of what happened that night has been shifting on every possible occasion. It started with denial of knowledge or existence of cash and moved on, eventually to questioning the way in which the evidence was presented or stored.
Moreover, the record shows that Varma’s lawyers participated fully in proceedings, cross examining witnesses, raising objections to evidence and filing applications . Yet, when the time came to make good on the evidence that would substantiate his story, Varma backed off. The obvious answer— he had none. Speculating from the sequence of events, one gets the sense Varma hoped to substantiate the “conspiracy” story, not with evidence, but by making it seem as if the IC was also in on it. The record exposes the hollowness and contradictions of his story.
The record, as it stands, shows that the storehouse was inside the compound of Varma’s official bungalow, the storehouse caught fire, large amounts of cash inside the storehouse were discovered, Varma was informed of the fire, he constantly remained in touch with his staff at the house, and the cash disappeared overnight.
While he tried to nitpick and question this narrative, Varma never offered a logical or coherent narrative of his own, choosing to rest his defence on bland denials or conspiracy theories. With the existence of cash being undisputed, Varma’s failure to explain its source and the attempt to cover up is what constituted misconduct on his part.
Why the Impeachment Must Continue
The IC has done its work commendably and fairly. Its findings, in my view, are unimpeachable. They are measured and based entirely on the material with little extraneous assumptions or fanciful theorisation. Yet, one thorny problem remains - can Parliament still proceed with Varma’s impeachment given that he has “resigned”.
I argue that it can and should for three reasons.
First, Varma cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. A resignation, in the middle of impeachment proceedings, should not be treated on par with any other resignation of a judge. An impeached judge does not get any perks and benefits upon retirement and once the process has begun, it should be continued to its logical end whether a judge has resigned or not. It would be a travesty if this intent of the law was defeated through a technical interpretation.
Second, the unfortunate precedents set in Justice PD Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen’s casesneed to be revisited. By allowing Dinakaran and Sen’s impeachment proceedings to lapse with their retirement, the public was deprived of a full and proper reckoning of the actions of these judges. Speaker Om Birla has an opportunity to set this right by continuing with the impeachment proceedings.
The public deserves to know the truth and hold judges accountable. Impeachment is not just about the removal of a judge. It is an important accountability measure that allows the public (not just Parliament or the Government) to know what a judge actually did. The public is at the end of the day, the real “employer” of judges, ministers, and bureaucrats and should know how and in what manner a public servant and constitutional functionary failed their duties.
Justice Varma should of course be given an opportunity to defend himself in the continued impeachment proceedings but his absence or failure to do so should not stop them. Parliament, as the people’s representatives, should take the constitutional process to its logical end.
(Alok Prasanna is the Co-founder and Senior Resident Fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)