Justice Yashwant Varma Case: Supreme Court Setback, Impeachment Process to Continue

The controversy surrounding Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has reached a decisive constitutional juncture after the Supreme Court dismissed his petition, paving the way for an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. With this ruling, the impeachment process against Justice Varma will continue, turning the case into a critical test of judicial transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity.

Supreme Court Rejects Justice Varma’s Plea

Justice Varma had approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker and the procedure adopted under the Judges Inquiry Act. He argued that an inquiry committee could not be constituted without prior approval from both Houses of Parliament, particularly the Rajya Sabha. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the Speaker is empowered under law to initiate the inquiry process, and that no constitutional or procedural infirmity exists in the steps taken so far.

This decision clears the legal path for a formal investigation into the allegations against Justice Varma and keeps alive the possibility of parliamentary impeachment, an extremely rare process in India’s judicial history.

Origins of the Controversy

The case came to light following a fire incident in March 2025 at a government bungalow in Delhi, officially registered as Justice Varma’s residence during his tenure at the Delhi High Court. While extinguishing the fire, fire department personnel discovered bundles of charred currency notes in a storeroom.

Preliminary estimates suggested that the unaccounted cash amounted to approximately ₹2.5 crore. Videos from the scene later surfaced, intensifying public scrutiny. Justice Varma maintained that the money was derived from lawful income; however, the fact that it was unaccounted cash triggered serious allegations of financial impropriety.

Administrative and Judicial Actions Taken

In the aftermath of the incident, Justice Varma was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court. However, he was not assigned any judicial work there. Parallelly, investigative agencies began probing the source of the cash and the circumstances surrounding the fire.

At the same time, steps were initiated in Parliament to explore impeachment proceedings under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which governs the removal of judges on grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity.

What the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 Provides

The Act prescribes a rigorous and multi-layered procedure for removing a judge. Once an impeachment motion is introduced, the Lok Sabha Speaker constitutes a three-member inquiry committee to investigate the allegations. The committee examines evidence, hears witnesses, and gives the judge a full opportunity to present a defense.

If the committee finds the charges proven, the impeachment motion must then be passed by a two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. This high threshold explains why judicial impeachments in India are exceptionally rare.

What Happens Next?

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Speaker is expected to proceed with constituting the inquiry committee. The investigation may take several months, involving examination of documents, financial records, and testimonies.

Justice Varma retains the right to defend himself at every stage. If the committee exonerates him, he may be reinstated to judicial duties. If the allegations are upheld, Parliament may move forward with impeachment proceedings. Resignation remains a possible option, though it would not erase the legal and ethical consequences of the case.

Why This Case Matters

This case goes beyond the fate of one judge. It raises fundamental questions about judicial accountability, institutional transparency, and the balance between independence and oversight. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that constitutional offices are not immune from scrutiny and that established legal procedures will be followed, even in the most sensitive cases.

At a time when public trust in institutions is under intense examination, the Justice Yashwant Varma case stands as a defining moment for India’s constitutional democracy—testing whether the judiciary can hold itself accountable while preserving its independence.