Justice Yashwant Varma resigns amid cash probe, impeachment inquiry set to lapse

ALlahabad heights margaret court try justness Yashwant Varma on th tendered his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu, effectively bringing to a close the ongoing parliamentary inquiry into allegations of unaccounted cash being discovered at his official residence in Delhi last year. People aware of the matter confirmed the development to HT.“While I do not propose to burden your august office with the reasons which have constrained me to submit this missive, it is with deep anguish that I hereby tender my resignation from the office of Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, with immediate effect,” stated the letter dated April 9.Justice Varma also sent a communication to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Thursday evening, informing the CJI of his communication to the President.The resignation is set to render infructuous the proceedings initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, as the statutory mechanism for removal, triggered through a motion in Parliament, ceases to operate once a judge demits office. Justice Varma had been facing removal proceedings following a Lok Sabha motion admitted in August 2025, with a three-member inquiry committee constituted by Speaker Om Birla to investigate the charges.Also Read: Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla reconstitutes Justice Yashwant Varma probe panelThe development marks a sudden end to a closely watched and procedurally complex impeachment process that had already encountered delays. As recently as February, the Lok Sabha Speaker had reconstituted the inquiry panel after one of its members, then Madras high court chief justice MM Shrivastava, retired before the proceedings could be concluded, necessitating a fresh start under the statutory scheme.Justice Varma was at the centre of controversy after allegations surfaced that burnt wads of unaccounted cash were discovered at his official residence in Delhi following a fire incident in March 2025, when he was serving as a judge of the Delhi high court. A subsequent in-house inquiry panel of the Supreme Court found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action to the executive.This led to the initiation of removal proceedings in Parliament, with notices being moved in both Houses in July 2025. While the Lok Sabha admitted the motion and proceeded to constitute an inquiry committee, the Rajya Sabha declined to admit a parallel motion, citing procedural infirmities.In January this year, the Supreme Court dismissed Justice Varma’s challenge to the impeachment process, clearing the decks for the inquiry committee to proceed. A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma held that the judge was not entitled to any relief and rejected arguments that the process was legally flawed.The court emphasised that constitutional safeguards available to judges cannot be used to “paralyse” the removal mechanism, underscoring that the Judges (Inquiry) Act provides “elaborate safeguards” to ensure fairness. These include the framing of definite charges, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and a full opportunity to mount a defence.Importantly, the court also upheld the Lok Sabha Speaker’s authority to proceed independently after the Rajya Sabha declined to admit the motion, holding that the Upper House notice never attained legal existence.Following the court’s judgment, Justice Varma appeared before the inquiry committee on January 24, and multiple in-camera hearings were conducted thereafter. The panel had indicated its intent to proceed on a near day-to-day basis, especially in view of the impending retirement of one of its members.Despite these efforts, the inquiry could not be completed in time, leading to the reconstitution of the committee in February. The proceedings were governed by strict confidentiality norms, with all hearings conducted in-camera and participants barred from publicly discussing the matter.With Justice Varma’s resignation, the continuation of the inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act becomes untenable. The law is designed to facilitate the removal of a sitting judge by Parliament on grounds of “proved misbehaviour” or incapacity; once the judge steps down, the question of removal no longer arises.The resignation thus brings an abrupt conclusion to a rare instance of impeachment proceedings against a sitting high court judge -- one that had raised significant questions about judicial accountability, parliamentary procedure, and the balance between independence and oversight within the higher judiciary.