Justice Yashwant Varma Faces Impeachment Threat Amid Corruption Allegations; Resignation Remains a Viable Exit
New Delhi – Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court is staring at the prospect of impeachment by Parliament following serious allegations of corruption, with the Union government reportedly preparing to initiate formal removal proceedings in the upcoming Monsoon Session.
Amid mounting pressure, officials familiar with the judicial appointment and removal mechanisms say resignation remains the only viable option for Justice Varma to exit with dignity and retain post-retirement benefits.
The Constitutional Framework and the Judge’s Dilemma
Under Article 217 of the Indian Constitution, a judge of a high court can voluntarily relinquish office by submitting a resignation letter addressed to the President.
Notably, such a resignation requires no approval process—only a formal communication in writing. Furthermore, a judge may indicate a future date of resignation and retain the right to withdraw it anytime before that date.
In contrast, removal through impeachment is a far more punitive and complex process, governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
If Parliament votes for removal, the judge is stripped not only of their office but also of all post-retirement benefits, including pension, something that would not happen in the case of a voluntary resignation.
Officials close to the matter indicate that Justice Varma has so far resisted suggestions to step down, despite a reported nudge from the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Sources reveal that CJI Khanna had written both to the President and the Prime Minister, recommending Varma’s removal in light of grave findings in an internal probe.
The In-House Inquiry and the Controversial Discovery
The controversy first erupted following a fire incident in March at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi, during his tenure at the Delhi High Court.
Emergency services, while controlling the fire, discovered several charred sacks containing large amounts of cash stashed in the outhouse.
Although Justice Varma denied any knowledge of the cash or its origins, an in-house panel appointed by the Supreme Court found his explanations unsatisfactory.
After examining multiple witnesses and recording Justice Varma’s statement, the panel indicted him for serious impropriety, leading to his transfer back to the Allahabad High Court, his parent court. Since the transfer, Justice Varma has not been assigned any judicial work.
Precedent and the Impeachment Route
The impeachment of a judge is a rare and politically sensitive process in India.
The only comparable cases in recent history involve Supreme Court judge Justice V. Ramaswami and Calcutta High Court’s Justice Soumitra Sen, both of whom resigned before their impeachment motions could culminate in a final vote in Parliament.
Justice Varma’s case could be the first to reach that stage in the new Parliament building, marking a significant moment in the country’s legislative and judicial history.
To initiate impeachment, a motion must be signed by at least 50 members in the Rajya Sabha or 100 members in the Lok Sabha. Once admitted, the Speaker or Chairman must appoint a three-member investigative committee comprising:
- the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge,
- the Chief Justice of a high court, and
- a “distinguished jurist.”
This panel is tasked with evaluating the grounds for removal and submitting a report to Parliament. If both Houses pass the motion with a two-thirds majority, the President can formally remove the judge.
Procedural Conflict: Parliament vs Supreme Court Inquiry
Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has acknowledged that the current situation presents a unique challenge.
Since the in-house inquiry conducted by the Supreme Court has already submitted its findings, there is debate over whether a separate parliamentary committee is still required under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
“This case is slightly different,” Rijiju said last week. “While we must follow the laid-down procedure, we also cannot overlook that a credible inquiry has already taken place under the authority of the Chief Justice of India.”
He added that it was now up to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to decide whether to accept the Supreme Court’s internal inquiry or initiate a fresh one as mandated under the 1968 Act.
“The integration of the CJI’s inquiry with the statutory process is a secondary matter,” Rijiju said. “The primary goal is to move the impeachment motion and preserve the dignity and integrity of our judiciary.”
A Defining Moment Ahead
With the Monsoon Session scheduled from July 21 to August 12, Parliament is expected to formally address the issue. If Justice Varma chooses to resign before the motion is introduced, he may preserve his pension and leave office on his terms.
However, if the impeachment motion is admitted and goes through the process, it could set a precedent for future judicial accountability, highlighting the system’s ability to act even against high-ranking members of the judiciary.
Legal experts point out that this episode also raises broader concerns about the efficacy and transparency of judicial oversight mechanisms, particularly as public trust in institutions faces growing scrutiny.
For now, all eyes are on Justice Yashwant Varma as the nation awaits his next move—resignation or confrontation.
