The Centre is reportedly considering moving forward with the impeachment process against Justice Yashwant Varma in the upcoming Winter session of Parliament, despite his resignation, following a panel's finding of guilt regarding unaccounted cash.
Key Points
- A Lok Sabha Speaker-constituted panel has found Justice Yashwant Varma guilty of possessing unexplained cash, disturbing evidence, and providing evasive explanations.
- The Centre is considering proceeding with the impeachment process against Justice Varma in the Winter session of Parliament, despite his resignation.
- Justice Varma's resignation has not been accepted because it was submitted after the removal process began in Parliament.
- The government aims to set a precedent that judges cannot evade removal proceedings by resigning after serious irregularities.
- The probe was initiated after a fire at Justice Varma's official residence in March 2025 allegedly revealed burnt currency notes.
The Centre may go ahead with the impeachment process against Justice Yashwant Varma in the Winter session of Parliament as a panel constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has found him guilty in connection with the discovery of stacks of unaccounted cash from his official residence.
A three-member committee formed by the speaker under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, in its report submitted in both houses of Parliament on Wednesday, said the charges of possessing unexplained cash, disturbing evidence and evasive explanation against Justice Varma 'are proved'.
Impeachment Proceedings and Resignation
The probe panel was set up after nearly 200 MPs pressed for the judge's removal by Parliament.
Justice Varma has since resigned but his resignation is yet to be notified by the law ministry.
His name still figures in the list of judges of the Allahabad high court.
Sources aware of the development said the government is considering a proposal to go ahead with Justice Varma's impeachment process during the Winter session.
Asked about the resignation letter sent by the judge, the sources said when a high court or Supreme Court judge resigns, it is normally considered deemed to be accepted.
However, in Justice Varma's case, the resignation letter was sent only after his removal process began in Parliament and hence, his resignation has not yet been accepted.
Also, the sources said, the government may want to set a precedent and send a message that a judge cannot escape the removal process even if he or she resigns after "indulging" in serious irregularities.
Background to the Investigation
A fire broke out in Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi on the night of March 14, 2025.
Justice Varma was a Delhi high court judge then.
Firefighters called to douse the blaze allegedly discovered a massive amount of burnt currency notes in a storeroom.
Birla formed the three-member committee in August last year to probe charges against Justice Varma after admitting a multi-party notice for his removal, setting in motion the process of his impeachment.
Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi high court to the Allahabad high court after the discovery of burnt wads of currency notes from his residence.
After referring to relevant laws and Supreme Court verdicts, the Delhi high court chief justice found that the charges against Justice Varma were serious and followed it up with an 'in-house procedure'.
Birla said an unblemished character and financial and intellectual integrity are the foundation of a common person's trust in the judiciary.
The speaker said he has accepted the proposal and constituted a three-member committee for Justice Varma's removal from his post, in accordance with section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Earlier, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house probe into the allegations and set up a three-member committee in March 2025 to conduct the inquiry.
After receiving the report, the CJI asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings.
However, since Justice Varma declined to quit, CJI Khanna forwarded the report and the judge's response on it to the president and the prime minister for his removal.
