Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has submitted his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu, more than a year after unaccounted cash was recovered from his official residence in Delhi. The resignation effectively halts potential parliamentary proceedings aimed at his removal from the bench.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had previously admitted a motion for Justice Varma’s removal. A three-member committee, established under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, was tasked with investigating the allegations against him. Justice Varma had sought to challenge this parliamentary move by approaching the Supreme Court, but his plea was rejected, allowing the proceedings to continue.
The recovery of unaccounted currency at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence occurred on March 14, 2025, when he was serving as a judge at the Delhi High Court. Following this incident, a three-member committee was constituted on March 22, 2025, by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to conduct an inquiry into the matter. Subsequent to the findings of this probe, Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court.
His resignation comes at a critical juncture, averting a protracted and potentially contentious parliamentary process. The Judges Inquiry Act provides a mechanism for the removal of judges from High Courts and the Supreme Court, requiring a process initiated by a motion in either House of Parliament, followed by an investigation and a vote by a majority of the total membership of each House. Such proceedings can be lengthy and involve significant public scrutiny.
The incident initially sparked a political storm and raised significant questions regarding judicial accountability and transparency within the Indian judiciary. The discovery of unaccounted cash at a judge’s residence is considered a serious matter that necessitates thorough investigation to uphold public trust in the judicial system. The process of inquiry and potential removal is designed to ensure that judges maintain the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct.
The allegations against Justice Varma pertained to the recovery of a substantial sum of money that was not accounted for through legitimate means. The subsequent transfer to the Allahabad High Court was seen by many as a consequence of the inquiry initiated against him. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the parliamentary proceedings to proceed indicated that the initial inquiry had found sufficient grounds to warrant further investigation.
Judicial appointments and conduct in India are governed by a framework that aims to ensure independence and integrity. However, mechanisms for accountability are also in place to address instances of alleged misconduct. The resignation of Justice Varma, while ending the immediate prospect of a parliamentary removal, brings a close to this particular chapter concerning his tenure as a judge. The details of the investigation and the exact amount of cash recovered have been subjects of media attention since the incident first came to light.
The Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 outlines the procedure for investigating cases of misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court. It involves the establishment of inquiry committees, the presentation of charges, and the opportunity for the judge to present their defense. If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapable of performing their duties, the report is then presented to the President, who can then initiate the process of removal through Parliament.
In this instance, the admission of the removal motion by the Lok Sabha Speaker signifies that a prima facie case was established. Justice Varma’s decision to resign preempts this formal process. The specifics of the unaccounted cash and the subsequent judicial and parliamentary responses highlight the intricate balance between judicial independence and the need for accountability in the highest echelons of the Indian legal system.
The Chenab Times News Desk