An inquiry committee has found all three charges against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Verma proved, holding that a substantial quantity of unexplained Rs 500 notes was found in a storeroom at his official residence, material evidence from the site was not properly preserved and his explanations about the episode were “evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect”. The cash was found after a fire at 30, Tughlaq Crescent in Delhi on March 14, 2025. However, the committee did not conclude that Justice Yashwant Verma personally owned the money in the criminal-law sense. Its finding was that substantial unexplained cash was found on premises under his control and that he failed to satisfactorily explain its presence, source or ownership.
The committee was constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to examine the three formal charges framed against the judge. While its findings are significant for the parliamentary removal process, they do not amount to a criminal conviction or establish criminal ownership of the cash.
Justice Yashwant Verma faced charge over cash found after fire
The first charge, or Article I, was found proved. The committee said substantial unexplained Rs 500-denomination currency notes were present in the storeroom at the official residence. The evidence indicated bundles, heaps and stacks of notes rather than a few stray pieces of currency.
The panel rejected the defence argument that the storeroom was completely outside Justice Yashwant Verma’s control. It held that the room was part of his official residential premises and remained under his institutional control. It also found that he could not satisfactorily explain where the money came from, who owned it or why such a substantial quantity of cash was there.
Justice Yashwant Verma also faulted over evidence handling
Article II was also found proved. The committee said the storeroom was not immediately sealed after the fire and that cleaning took place after first responders had left. By the time a formal inspection was conducted, the currency seen at the site was no longer available. The panel concluded that material evidence had not been properly secured, preserved or inventoried.
The report referred to the presence of Justice Yashwant Verma’s Private Secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and household staff member Mohd Rahil near the storeroom during the cleaning process. However, it specifically did not conclude that Justice Yashwant Verma personally removed the cash. Article II was based on the failure to preserve evidence and acquiescence in the disturbance of the scene, not proof that he himself took away the currency.
Justice Yashwant Verma’s explanations called “evasive”
The third charge concerned the judge’s explanations about the cash, its source and ownership, as well as what happened after the fire. The committee found his responses inadequate and said they failed to address key questions satisfactorily. It described them as “evasive, incomplete and misleading in effect”, saying they did not show the level of candour and institutional responsibility expected in the circumstances.
Justice Yashwant Verma denied the allegations and maintained that no cash had been recovered from his residence. He said he was not present when the fire broke out and was not among the first responders, arguing that the site was under the control of officials who were there at the time.
Justice Yashwant Verma’s defence raised planting and removal claims
His defence also suggested possibilities including conspiracy, planting of currency, fake notes and removal of money by first responders. The committee said these claims were not supported by defence evidence. No defence witnesses or affidavits were submitted, and the panel rejected the contention that the storeroom was entirely outside his control.
Justice Yashwant Verma later withdrew from further participation after the presenting side completed its evidence and cross-examination. The committee also could not determine the exact value of the cash because it was never formally seized, counted, inventoried or preserved at the scene. It therefore established the presence of a substantial quantity of ₹500 notes but not a precise total.
Justice Yashwant Verma report confirms all three articles proved
In its final finding, the committee concluded that all three Articles of Charge were proved: the discovery and presence of substantial unexplained currency, failure to preserve or interference with material evidence, and evasive or misleading explanations.
The findings, however, remain part of the parliamentary removal process rather than a criminal verdict. The central conclusion was that substantial unexplained cash was found on premises under Justice Yashwant Verma’s control, that he failed to satisfactorily account for its presence, source or ownership, and that material evidence connected with the episode was not adequately preserved. The committee stopped short of finding that the cash personally belonged to him in the criminal-law sense.
Also Read: Air India Phuket-Delhi Pilot Took Sleep Medication, Tested Positive For Marijuana In Two Tests
Khalid Lateef is a Sub-Editor at NewsX Digital, specializing in Indian politics and global affairs. He also covers viral trending stories and major crime developments.
The post Justice Yashwant Verma Cash Row: Panel Indicts Ex-HC Judge On All 3 Counts, Here Are Findings appeared first on NewsX.