Judicial Impeachment: The Case of Justice Yashwant Varma
Introduction
The Indian judiciary, long seen as the guardian of constitutional values and democratic resilience, now finds itself in an introspective moment. The impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge of the Allahabad High Court and former Delhi High Court judge, is the most serious challenge yet to the tacit norms that govern judicial conduct and accountability1.
While India has seen previous attempts at judicial impeachment, none has ever succeeded2. The present case, however, backed by over 200 Members of Parliament, sets the stage for a potentially historic outcome3.
The Incident That Sparked a Constitutional Storm
On 14 March 2025, a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. What initially appeared to be an unfortunate domestic accident quickly turned into a scandal of national proportions. Firefighters reported the discovery of scorched bundles of ₹500 currency notes in an outhouse within the residential compound4.
The Supreme Court Collegium was compelled to take prompt action due to the immediate suspicion aroused by these unaccounted for and partially burned wads of cash5.
In an unprecedented move, the Collegium, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, recommended the immediate transfer of Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court—his parent court—and called for an in-house inquiry to determine the veracity of the allegations6. This marked the first time in recent history that a sitting High Court judge was subjected to such scrutiny based on a preliminary incident.
The In-House Inquiry and Findings
The in-house inquiry committee, constituted under the aegis of the Supreme Court’s internal procedures, was led by Justice Sheel Nagu, G. S. Sandhawalia, and Anu Sivaraman7. The committee examined over fifty witnesses, reviewed CCTV footage, and scrutinized photographic evidence.
Justice Varma, when questioned, allegedly failed to provide a credible explanation for the presence of the money and instead claimed a conspiracy was at play8.
The committee concluded that Justice Varma had, at the very least, “covert control” over the location in which the currency was found. His inability to account for the cash, coupled with evasive responses, led the committee to determine that his actions constituted serious judicial misconduct. The committee’s report was then submitted to the Chief Justice of India Sir B. R Gavai in early May 2025, recommending that impeachment proceedings be initiated9.
An anonymous petition was sent to the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the three-member in-house committee made by the CJI, where Section 3(2) of the Judges Enquiry Act, 1968, grants the Speaker or the Chairman the authority to form such a committee to investigate a judge’s removal10.
Question arises: Isn’t it a severe interference of judiciary in the power of Legislature?11
Political Consensus and Parliamentary Action
Armed with the inquiry report, Members of Parliament began mobilising across party lines. The Monsoon Session of Parliament became the battleground for a rare show of bipartisan unity, with 152 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs signing the impeachment notice12, including Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi.
These numbers far exceeded the constitutional requirement under Articles 124 and 218 of the Indian Constitution, which stipulate support from at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members to initiate such a motion13.
The notice was formally submitted to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha Mr. Om Birla and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar. If accepted, a three-person inquiry committee made up of a renowned jurist, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a Supreme Court judge would be established. Upon their findings, the motion would need to be passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses to result in the removal of Justice Varma14.
Justice Varma’s Legal Challenge and Due Process Concerns
Justice Varma responded to the findings by filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the legality and procedural fairness of the in-house inquiry15. Through senior counsel, he argued that the process lacked transparency and denied him a fair opportunity to present evidence in his defence.
He also raised concerns about whether the internal inquiry, not backed by statutory process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, could be the sole basis for impeachment16.
These arguments open a deeper debate:
Can a non-statutory in-house inquiry form the constitutional bedrock for the impeachment of a High Court judge?
Or must Parliament first constitute an independent committee under the formal judicial removal mechanism?17
Constitutional and Statutory Basis for Impeachment
The dismissal of judges from India’s High Court and Supreme Court is governed by Articles 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution, as well as Articles 217 and 218 for High Court judges18. Only the President may remove a judge on the grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity after a motion approved by both Houses of Parliament by a two-thirds majority.
To operationalise this, Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 196919. These provide that once a motion with the requisite number of signatures (100 in Lok Sabha or 50 in Rajya Sabha) is admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is formed.
In Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 699, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the in-house procedure and emphasized that while judges enjoy constitutional protection, accountability must coexist with independence20.
Additionally, in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, the Court held that sitting judges are not immune from criminal prosecution, but such action requires the prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India21.
Precedents and Historical Context
The Indian legal system has flirted with judicial impeachment before, but never crossed the Rubicon.
Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): Failed due to Congress abstention22.
Sarojini Ramaswami v. UOI (AIR 1992 SC 2219): Allegations against wife23.
Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): Rajya Sabha moved for removal24.
Justice B. Pardiwala (2015): Impeachment for remarks on reservation25.
Justice S.K. Gangele: Cleared by inquiry committee26.
Justice C.S. Karnan (2017): Jailed for contempt27.
Dipak Misra (2018): Opposition draft motion28.
CJI Ranjan Gogoi (2018): Motion rejected by Rajya Sabha Chairman29.
What distinguishes the Justice Varma case is the element of real-time scandal, visual evidence of burnt currency, and the speed with which both the judiciary and Parliament have acted30.
If the process is followed to its constitutional conclusion, it could become the first successful judicial impeachment in India’s history31.
The Vice President’s Resignation: A Constitutional Tangle
A new layer of complexity was added when Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar—who, as Rajya Sabha Chairman, was supposed to “admit” the motion—resigned on July 23, 2025. His resignation has triggered legal ambiguity: Was the motion merely “received” or formally “admitted”?32
This distinction is crucial, as only an admitted motion triggers the formation of the inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The uncertainty has reignited debates about the need for clearer legislative standards33.
Implications for the Judiciary and the Constitution
This impeachment episode has profound implications beyond the fate of Justice Varma. It brings into focus the question of judicial independence versus judicial accountability34.
Critics warn that allowing internal inquiries to become triggers for parliamentary action may make the judiciary vulnerable to executive influence. On the other hand, proponents argue that the cloak of judicial immunity has, for too long, shielded judges from meaningful scrutiny35.
With increasing public scrutiny and media coverage, the expectation for transparency has never been higher. The Justice Varma case may become the precedent upon which future mechanisms of judicial responsibility are shaped36.
Conclusion: An Inflection Point
The case of Justice Yashwant Varma marks a decisive turning point in Indian legal history. It is not merely about one judge or one scandal; it is about whether the Indian judiciary can evolve into an institution that is not only independent but also self-correcting37.
Whatever the final outcome, one truth stands tall: public trust in the judiciary must be preserved, and accountability must not become a casualty in the pursuit of institutional prestige.
References
Constitution of India, Article 124(4) – “A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament… on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
Constitution of India, Articles 217 and 218 – Apply mutatis mutandis to High Court judges regarding removal procedures.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 – Statutory framework governing the procedure for investigation and impeachment of judges in India.
Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 699 – Upheld the legality of the in-house mechanism and affirmed that judicial accountability can coexist with independence.
Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 – Held that judges are not immune from criminal prosecution, subject to prior sanction from the Chief Justice of India.
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Handbook for Members, Parliamentary Research and Training Institute for Democracies (PRIDE), 2019 – Details procedural aspects of impeachment motions under the Constitution.
In Re: Justice C.S. Karnan, (2017) 7 SCC 1 – First instance of a sitting High Court judge being convicted for contempt and sentenced to imprisonment by the Supreme Court.
Impeachment Proceedings of Justice V. Ramaswami, Lok Sabha Debates, 10 May 1993 – The only case where impeachment motion was brought but failed due to political abstentions.
Indian Express, “Ramaswami’s Wife in Property Row”, 1991 – Reference to public allegations involving Sarojini Ramaswami, though no official legal proceedings were initiated.
“Justice Ranjan Gogoi impeachment motion rejected,” The Hindu, April 23, 2018 – Details of the failed motion submitted against then CJI Gogoi and its dismissal by Rajya Sabha Chairman.
Supreme Court of India, Handbook on Ethics and Conduct for Judges, 2010 – Reaffirms standards of judicial behaviour and responsibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch Fv DQPrnTsHBbtA
Award-Winning Article Written By: Ms.Chandrani Chakraborty
