Inquiry committee fast-tracks proceedings in probe against justice Yashwant Varma

THe three-member enquiry citizens committee constituted by the Lok Sabha talker to see allegations against Allahabad heights Court judge justice Yashwant Varma over discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi last year has fast-tracked its proceedings, apparently in view of the impending retirement of one of its members, Madras High Court chief justice MM Shrivastava, who is set to demit office on March 6.Justice Varma first appeared before the committee, constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, on January 24, shortly after the Supreme Court dismissed his petition challenging the initiation of impeachment proceedings against him. Since then, at least two more hearings have been held last week, with the committee indicating its preference to conduct proceedings on a day-to-day basis. Two additional dates have been fixed for hearings this week.The inquiry proceedings are being held in camera, in keeping with the statutory framework governing removal proceedings against judges. There is also a strict restriction on lawyers and law officers associated with the matter from speaking to the press or discussing the proceedings outside the committee.Besides justice Shrivastava, the inquiry committee also comprises Supreme Court judge justice Aravind Kumar, and senior advocate BV Acharya. It was constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla after admitting a motion seeking justice Varma’s removal over allegations of unaccounted cash being found at his official residence in Delhi following a fire in March 2025, when he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court.In a detailed judgment delivered on January 16, the Supreme Court had cleared the way for the committee to proceed, holding that “constitutional safeguards for judges cannot come at the cost of paralysing the removal process itself”. The top court rejected justice Varma’s challenge to the Speaker’s decision to set up the panel, ruling that he had failed to establish any present or inevitable violation of his fundamental rights.Importantly, the court underlined that the Judges (Inquiry) Act itself provides “elaborate safeguards” to the judge facing removal proceedings. These include the framing of definite charges, full opportunity to defend himself, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and adjudication by senior constitutional functionaries. The bench held that the statutory scheme sufficiently protects judicial independence while ensuring that allegations of misbehaviour are examined effectively.The top court also rejected justice Varma’s argument that impeachment proceedings could not continue after the Rajya Sabha declined to admit a parallel removal motion, holding that the Lok Sabha’s decision to constitute an inquiry committee remained valid and autonomous.The impending retirement of justice Shrivastava has figured in recent Supreme Court proceedings as well. On February 4, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant explicitly took note of the Madras High Court chief justice having “barely a month” left in office while dealing with litigation over Tamil Nadu laws replacing the Governor with the state government in appointments of vice chancellors. The CJI gave chief justice Shrivastava the option to constitute an appropriate bench to decide the matter expeditiously, recognising the practical constraints posed by the chief justice’s imminent retirement.Against this backdrop, the accelerated pace of hearings before the Lok Sabha inquiry committee appears aimed at concluding the inquiry before Justice Shrivastava’s retirement on March 5. Should the proceedings remain incomplete beyond that date, the committee would have to be reconstituted with a new member, a step that would require the inquiry to recommence afresh under the Judges (Inquiry) Act — potentially delaying the impeachment process significantly.Justice Varma had assailed the impeachment process initiated against him following the alleged discovery of cash at his official residence in Delhi after a fire in March 2025. A Supreme Court in-house inquiry panel subsequently found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action to the Prime Minister and the President.Subsequently, notices seeking his removal were moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on July 21, 2025. While the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion on August 12 and constituted a three-member inquiry committee, the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman, soon after the then chairman and Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned, declined to admit the motion, holding it to be defective.