TODAY, LOK SABHA SPEAKER Om Birla informed the Parliament’s Lower House that he has constituted a three-member Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (‘1968 Act’) to investigate allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, a former Delhi High Court judge and currently serving at the Allahabad High Court.
The allegations pertain to the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash by Delhi Fire Service personnel on March 14, 2025, from an outhouse at the official residence of Justice Varma during a firefighting operation.
The committee comprises Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Chief Justice of the Madras High Court Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya. It has been formed pursuant to Section 3 of the 1968 Act.
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.
The Speaker announced that a motion to impeach Justice Varma, signed by 146 MPs, including the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, had been received.
Under Article 124(4) read with Article 218 of the Constitution, a High Court judge can be removed only if both Houses of Parliament, with at least two-thirds of members present and voting, pass a resolution by a majority of their total membership and present an address to the President in the same session, citing proven misbehavior or incapacity.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act outlines the procedure for investigating charges against a judge. The committee is required to frame specific charges against the judge, provide the judge with a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, and be heard in their defense.
Justice Varma's writ was dismissed last week Last week, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Justice Varma challenging the recommendation for his removal by the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, as well as the constitution of an in-house inquiry committee and the procedure it followed in investigating the alleged recovery of a large sum of partially burnt, unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the Chief Justice of India, as the head of the judiciary, is morally, ethically, and legally empowered to take necessary steps to safeguard the institutional integrity of the judicial system when informed of serious misconduct by a judge. The Court also held that the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure has legal sanction and does not conflict with the framework of Article 217 of the Constitution.
What had the in-house committee found? The in-house 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, which 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.”