© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
Premium
How Justice Yashwant Varma’s resignation stops impeachment probe into ‘burnt cash’ row
The panel appointed by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to look into the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma was scheduled to begin hearings Friday.
Justice Yashwant Varma is learnt to have submitted his resignation to President Draupadi Murmu. (File Photo)
The resignation of Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma is set to bring to a close the inquiry initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act into the discovery of burnt cash at his Delhi residence in March 2025. Justice Yashwant Varma was facing an inquiry under Section 3 of the Act, which deals with “investigation into misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge by a Committee”.
Justice Yashwant Varma is learnt to have submitted his resignation to President Draupadi Murmu.
Meanwhile, a panel appointed by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to look into the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma was scheduled to begin hearings Friday.
According to Article 217(appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court) sub section (1) of the Constitution, every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal, and shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as provided in article 224, and in any other case, until he attains the age of sixty-two years.
The conditions, however, that have to be met are: a) A Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;
(b) A Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided in clause (4) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court;
(c) The office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by the President to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court within the territory of India.
Story continues below this ad
Article 124 (Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court) (4) reads, “A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two – thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
The Supreme Court has previously dismissed Varma’s plea, who had challenged the legality of the committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to inquire into allegations of the discovery of burnt cash from his Delhi house.
Motions for Justice Varma’s removal were introduced in both Houses of Parliament. While constituting the committee in August 2025, the Speaker said the motion to remove the judge will remain pending until the committee submits its report.
In the Supreme Court, Justice Varma’s petition relied on the first proviso to Section 3 (2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which contemplates a situation in which notice for impeachment is given in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the same day.
Story continues below this ad
In such a case, the clause says “no Committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses; and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman”.
What happened
Justice Yashwant Varma remained at the centre of one of the most significant judicial controversies of the year following the purported recovery of large quantities of burnt and partially burnt cash from his official residence in Delhi after a fire incident in March. While the incident was officially logged as a fire emergency, the discovery of cash triggered intense media attention and institutional scrutiny. Justice Varma denied ownership of the money and any wrongdoing.
Amid growing concerns, the Delhi High Court withdrew his judicial work on March 22, an unusual administrative step. Soon after, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court, his parent court. In April, the Supreme Court initiated an in-house inquiry by a three-member committee to examine issues of access, control and responsibility for the premises where the cash was found.
By May, the inquiry committee submitted its report to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who forwarded the matter to the President of India — a rare constitutional step that can precede removal proceedings against a sitting high court judge. Justice Varma challenged the inquiry process before the court and refused to resign.
Story continues below this ad
In July, impeachment notices backed by members of both Houses of the Parliament were submitted, leading to the constitution of a parliamentary committee that later recorded a prima facie finding of culpability. On August 7, the apex court dismissed Justice Varma’s petitions challenging the in-house inquiry and the CJI’s recommendation for his removal.
Throughout the year, he continued to serve as a judge of the Allahabad High Court, even as his case sparked sustained debate on judicial accountability, transparency and institutional integrity.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Live Blog