Justice Yashwant Varma has resigned

IN A DRAMATIC TURN of events, Justice Yashwant Varma, who had been facing an inquiry after sacks of burnt Indian currency notes were found at the outhouse of his official residence in Delhi, has resigned with immediate effect.

Under Article 217(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, a High Court judge may resign from office by writing under his hand addressed to the President.

With his resignation, the ongoing inquiry against him under the Judges (Inquiry) Act also stands abated, since such an inquiry can only be conducted against a sitting judge.

The allegations against Justice Varma pertain to the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash by Delhi Fire Service personnel on March 14, 2025, from an outhouse at his official residence during a firefighting operation. At that time, he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. 

Following the incident, the Supreme Court Collegium, headed by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, decided to repatriate him to his parent High Court, the Allahabad High Court.

The then CJI Khanna also constituted an in-house committee to probe the allegations against him. The committee concluded that “cash was found in the storeroom of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi, officially occupied by Justice Yashwant Varma,” and that “access to the storeroom (where the cash was kept) was under the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members.” 

It further noted that “strong inferential evidence establishes that the burnt cash was removed from the storeroom during the early hours of March 15, 2025, from 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi.”

The committee’s report stated, “The partially burnt currency notes found during the firefighting process are highly suspicious and not of a small amount or denomination, and could not have been placed in the storeroom without the tacit or active consent of Justice Varma or his family members.”

In its recommendation, the committee concluded, “Based on the direct and electronic evidence on record, this Committee is firmly of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations raised in the letter of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India dated March 22, 2025. The misconduct found proven is serious enough to warrant the initiation of proceedings for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge of the Allahabad High Court.”

Acting on the report, CJI Khanna gave Justice Varma the option to resign, but he refused. This constrained CJI Khanna to write to the Prime Minister recommending his removal from office.

On August 12 last year, the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted a three-member Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to investigate the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, a former Delhi High Court judge then serving at the Allahabad High Court. This followed a motion to impeach Justice Varma signed by 146 MPs, including the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi.

The Judges Inquiry Committee initially comprised Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Chief Justice of the Madras High Court Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya. Later, the committee was reconstituted following the retirement of Shrivastava, who was replaced by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Shree Chandrashekhar.

Under the 1968 Act, Members of Parliament (‘MPs’) are authorised to sign a motion for the removal of a judge. In the Lok Sabha, the motion requires the signatures of at least 100 MPs, while in the Rajya Sabha, it requires at least 50 MPs.

Under Article 124(4), read with Article 218 of the Constitution, a High Court judge can be removed only if both Houses of Parliament, by a majority of the total membership of each House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting, pass a resolution to that effect and present an address to the President in the same session, citing proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

The Judges (Inquiry) Act outlines the procedure for investigating charges against a judge. The committee is required to frame specific charges, provide the judge with a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, adduce evidence, and be heard in his or her defence.

A petition filed by Justice Varma challenging the in-house report was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Later, the Supreme Court also rejected his challenge to the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker to admit a motion for his removal and to constitute a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Justice Varma had continued to be divested of judicial work while receiving his full salary from the Consolidated Fund of India for nearly a year.

Past resignations by judges facing charges

Justice Varma was not the first judge to face an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Supreme Court judge Justice V. Ramaswami was the first against whom impeachment proceedings were initiated. The Inquiry Committee indicted him; however, the motion to impeach him failed in 1993 as it did not secure the requisite majority in the Lok Sabha.

Calcutta High Court judge Soumitra Sen faced an inquiry under the Act over corruption allegations. The Inquiry Committee found him guilty. Although a motion for his removal was passed in the Rajya Sabha, he resigned on the eve of the Lok Sabha taking up the motion for discussion and voting.

Madhya Pradesh High Court judge S.K. Gangele also faced an inquiry under the Act over allegations of sexual harassment of a district and sessions judge. However, the Inquiry Committee found the material on record insufficient to establish the charge, and the motion could not be carried forward.

Facing impeachment on charges of corruption and judicial misconduct, Justice P.D. Dinakaran resigned expressing a “lack of faith and confidence” in the three-member Inquiry Committee probing the charges against him.

Notably, Justice Varma is only the second ever judge since Justice Dinakaran to have resigned before the findings of the Inquiry Committee under the 1986 Act have been concluded.