New Delhi, April 10 Calling himself a victim of a smear campaign, Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma has withdrawn from an inquiry being conducted by a Lok Sabha-appointed panel for his impeachment, saying his continued participation would legitimize an earlier inquiry, where he was asked to "answer the unanswerable" question about the source of money found in his Delhi residence.
The embattled Judge Varma, who has been facing scrutiny after large sums of cash were found in his residence here last year, submitted his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on April 9, rendering the impeachment proceedings against him futile.
The alleged discovery of a large stash of cash took place after a fire broke out at the residence of Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, at around 11:35 pm on the night of Holi on March 14, 2025, prompting fire department personnel to rush to the scene and extinguish the flames.
In a separate letter addressed to the judges of the Inquiry Committee appointed by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, Judge Varma expressed his "anguish" and listed the reasons for withdrawing himself from the ongoing inquiry, a prerequisite before initiating an impeachment motion in Parliament.
"I have been subjected to a smear campaign for over a year based on unfounded allegations that would never have met even the bare threshold known in law, which would have justified a court taking cognizance in ordinary circumstances," Judge Varma (57) said in the letter.
In the 13-page letter, he stated that during his over 13-year career as a high court judge, he was never accused of corruption or judicial impropriety.
The judge further alleged that 27 out of the 54 witnesses, who did not speak against him, were dropped from the apex court's in-house inquiry committee proceedings "without any explanation," and "no charge was ever made, and no evidence whatsoever was presented to show that any cash was placed in the storeroom by me or at my instance, or even with my knowledge or consent".
He contended that the charges against him were based solely on impermissible presumptions and should never have been put to him.
Reiterating his defense, Judge Varma stated that he was physically absent when the alleged incident took place at his residence and was on a pre-planned vacation, and that the alleged facts of the incident "contradict ordinary logic and common sense, suggesting that I would not have chosen such a location to store 'cash'".
The judge strongly rebutted the proceedings undertaken by the two committees and claimed that they too "rest on the bare and undisputed facts that a storeroom existed within the allotted premises and that cash was allegedly found there".
"If that alone is considered sufficient for a finding of misconduct, the entire exercise of gathering evidence was unnecessary. The burden of proof has been effectively reversed without any substantial evidence," he said in the letter.
Judge Varma stated that it was impossible for him to reconcile with the state of affairs that lack "fairness or due process".
"In these circumstances, I would be doing myself and the institution a disservice by continuing to participate in these proceedings, thereby legitimizing a process that requires me to answer the unanswerable question: where did the money come from," he said.
In his letter, Judge Varma expressed his profound disappointment that despite the solemn nature of these proceedings, which carry the potential consequence of removing a high court judge from his constitutional office, the committee did not intervene despite the shocking manner in which the proceedings unfolded.
"Even after the pattern of selectively dropping witnesses became evident, the Committee took no steps to summon the dropped witnesses or any other relevant persons in order to ascertain the truth. Instead, it proceeded to require me to provide all evidence in my 'defence' when no substantial case had been established. This course has left me with no choice but to withdraw," the judge said.
He stated that a rational and fair inquiry would have recognized the complete absence of a "prima facie" case and dropped the proceedings at this stage, rather than requiring him to prove multiple negatives and disprove unsubstantiated presumptions.
"I therefore withdraw from these proceedings with immediate effect, and I have instructed my advocates accordingly. I withdraw with deep sadness, conscious of the gravity of my decision and with the hope that history will one day record the unfair treatment that a sitting High Court judge faced, and that this entire episode will be marked by this from its inception," Judge Varma said in the letter.