Justice Yashwant Varma Cash Row: Full Timeline of the Controversy

Inquiry report is tabled in Parliament: all three charges proved Parliament

What happened: The report, with the oral and documentary evidence, was laid before both Houses. The committee found that substantial ₹500 notes were present in the storeroom and that Varma failed to explain their presence, source or ownership. It also found the room was disturbed before it could be sealed and inspected, and that his explanations were evasive and unsatisfactory.

What it did not find: No page I could read gives a rupee figure, because the notes were never seized or counted. The committee did not say it had proved Varma personally removed them; its finding rested on failure to preserve evidence and acquiescence in the disturbance. It also found no evidence for his claim of a plot.

What comes next: Reports say the proceedings are now infructuous, since he has resigned, but that the findings are on the parliamentary record. As of 12 August the resignation had not been notified by the Union law ministry. I found no report of any further step after tabling.

Committee submits its report to Speaker Om Birla Parliament

What happened: The three-member committee, headed by Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, handed its report to the Speaker. It had carried on after Varma’s resignation and his withdrawal from the proceedings, recording witness statements and examining photographs, videos and electronic material.

Justice Varma resigns, a day before his hearing was due Courts & resignation

What happened: Varma, by then a judge of the Allahabad High Court, wrote to the President resigning his post. Bar & Bench published the letter on 10 April; several outlets say it was sent on 9 April. The committee had been due to begin hearing his defence the next day.

The consequence: Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act the Houses can only vote to remove a sitting judge, so the removal motion lost its practical purpose. The committee still finished its report. Reports say the resignation had not been formally notified by 12 August.

Bombay High Court Chief Justice joins the committee Parliament

What happened: The Lok Sabha reconstituted the committee, with Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar as the High Court member. Justice Aravind Kumar and senior advocate B.V. Acharya continued. The Madras High Court Chief Justice who had been on the original panel was due to retire.

Supreme Court rejects his challenge to the Lok Sabha panel Courts & resignation

What happened: Varma argued that notices had been given in both Houses on the same day, so the Speaker should not have formed a committee on her own while the Rajya Sabha was yet to decide. The Court found no illegality in the Speaker’s decision and said he was not entitled to relief.

Committee frames three articles of charge Parliament

What happened: According to reports, the committee, which first met in September, framed three charges. They concerned the unexplained currency, the failure to preserve the evidence and the quality of his explanations. Varma was given notice of the charges.

Speaker admits the motion and forms a three-member committee Parliament

What happened: Birla admitted the removal notice and constituted the committee under the 1968 Act. The Lok Sabha Secretariat told the Supreme Court the Rajya Sabha had not admitted its parallel notice, which is the point Varma later took to the Supreme Court. Birla said the proposal would stay pending until the committee reported.

Supreme Court dismisses his challenge to the in-house report Courts & resignation

What happened: Varma asked the Court to quash the in-house report and the Chief Justice’s removal recommendation. The bench held the petition not maintainable, said the in-house procedure has legal sanction, and noted that he had taken part in the inquiry before questioning its competence.

What the Court said: It also said the in-house report does not itself remove a judge: only Parliament, under the Constitution, can.

146 Lok Sabha MPs file the removal notice Parliament

What happened: On the first day of the Monsoon Session, MPs from across parties submitted notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman seeking Varma’s removal. Birla said he had received the proposal from 146 members, including Rahul Gandhi and Ravi Shankar Prasad.

Chief Justice Khanna writes to the President and the Prime Minister In-house inquiry

What happened: After Varma reportedly declined to resign, Khanna forwarded the committee’s report and his own recommendation that Parliament begin removal proceedings. This is the step that moved the matter from the judiciary to the Houses.

In-house committee finds substance in the allegations In-house inquiry

What happened: The three-judge panel examined witnesses and material from the night of the fire and concluded that there was enough substance in the allegations to warrant more serious action. The report was sent to the Chief Justice and later made public.

What it looked at: Who had access to the storeroom, what happened to the burnt material after the fire, and whether Varma’s explanations held up.

Transfer to Allahabad is notified, with no judicial work In-house inquiry

What happened: The Supreme Court Collegium proposed Varma’s return to his parent Allahabad High Court on 20 March and recommended it formally on 24 March. The government notified it on 28 March. The Chief Justice of Allahabad was told not to assign him judicial work for the time being.

The distinction: The Collegium treated the transfer as an administrative step, separate from the inquiry into the cash.

Chief Justice Khanna orders an inquiry and publishes the evidence In-house inquiry

What happened: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna appointed a three-member committee of High Court judges and directed that Varma be given no judicial work. In an unusual step the Court put the Delhi Chief Justice’s report, photographs and a video of the burnt notes on its website, along with Varma’s reply.

Delhi Chief Justice reports to the Chief Justice of India; Varma replies In-house inquiry

What happened: Upadhyaya sent a preliminary report. Varma was asked to explain the presence of cash, its source and the removal of the burnt material. He denied that he or his family had kept any cash there and said the storeroom was separate from his living area and open to staff.

Delhi police chief alerts the Chief Justice; Varma is questioned Fire & discovery

What happened: Photographs and video from the responders reached senior officials and the Delhi High Court Chief Justice was told. Varma, who had been away in Madhya Pradesh, returned to Delhi. On 17 March Upadhyaya met him; he said household items had been damaged, pointed out that the storeroom was open to staff and the CPWD, and raised the possibility of a conspiracy.

A storeroom fire at 30 Tughlaq Crescent, around 11:35 pm Fire & discovery

What happened: A fire broke out in a storeroom at the Delhi High Court judge’s bungalow. Firefighters and police who responded reportedly saw bundles of burnt and half-burnt currency notes in the debris. Varma was away from Delhi at the time.

What was not done: Nothing was seized, counted or inventoried on the night. That gap is why every later inquiry had to work from witness accounts, photographs and videos rather than a physical count.