What Happened
- Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court submitted his resignation to the President of India on April 9, 2026, ending nearly a year-long controversy following the recovery of large amounts of cash from his official residence in New Delhi
- The cash was discovered during firefighting operations at his Delhi residence on March 14, 2025, after a fire broke out; stacks of currency notes, reportedly over 1.5 feet high, were found at the site
- More than 140 Lok Sabha members had signed an impeachment motion, triggering proceedings under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; a parliamentary inquiry committee was examining the case day-to-day from March 13 to March 21, 2026
- Justice Varma denied ownership of the recovered cash in his written response to the panel
- His resignation effectively terminates the impeachment proceedings; however, legal experts noted that he loses judicial immunity upon resignation, making a criminal prosecution possible
Static Topic Bridges
Impeachment of Judges — Articles 124(4), (5), 217, and 218
The removal of High Court and Supreme Court judges in India follows a constitutionally prescribed procedure under Articles 124(4) and 124(5), made applicable to High Court judges via Article 218. A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed by the President only after an address by each House of Parliament, supported by a special majority — either an absolute majority of the total membership of the House, or a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, whichever is higher — in the same session. The grounds for removal are "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity."
- Article 124(4): Grounds — proved misbehaviour or incapacity
- Article 124(5): Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for presenting an address for removal
- Article 218: Articles 124(4) and (5) apply equally to High Court judges
- Lok Sabha motion requires signatures of at least 100 members; Rajya Sabha motion requires at least 50 members
- Both Houses must pass the motion in the same parliamentary session with special majority
Connection to this news: The impeachment motion against Justice Varma had the backing of over 140 Lok Sabha members, satisfying the 100-member threshold; his resignation before the process concluded follows a pattern in India's judicial accountability history.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — The Procedural Framework
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 provides the detailed procedure for parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of judges once an impeachment motion is admitted. Upon admission by the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha), a three-member Inquiry Committee is constituted comprising: (a) a Chief Justice or judge of the Supreme Court; (b) a Chief Justice of a High Court; and (c) a distinguished jurist. The Committee has powers of a civil court — including summoning witnesses, examining documents, and the right of the judge to cross-examine witnesses. If the Committee finds the charges proved, Parliament may proceed to vote on removal.
- Three-member committee: SC judge/CJ + HC Chief Justice + eminent jurist
- Committee has civil court powers under CPC
- The judge has full due process rights including right to cross-examine
- Speaker of Lok Sabha cannot reject a motion that satisfies procedural requirements (unlike most parliamentary business)
- Entire process must culminate in both Houses passing the motion in the same session
Connection to this news: The parliamentary committee examining Justice Varma's case was constituted under this Act; his resignation pre-empts the Committee's final report and Parliament's vote, as there would be no serving judge to remove.
Independence of the Judiciary and Judicial Accountability
The Indian Constitution establishes judicial independence through several mechanisms: security of tenure (judges cannot be removed except through the constitutionally prescribed procedure); fixed salaries charged to the Consolidated Fund of India (not subject to Parliament's vote); no practice before the same court after retirement for Supreme Court judges; and bar on Parliament discussing conduct of judges except on an impeachment motion. These provisions, however, create a high bar for accountability — no judge has been successfully impeached in India's history despite several attempts.
- Six impeachment attempts in India since independence — none successful
- Three major cases ended with judges resigning before proceedings completed (V. Ramaswami in 1993 survived Parliament vote; K. Veeraswami case withdrawn; Soumitra Sen resigned 2011; P.D. Dinakaran resigned 2011)
- Justice C.S. Karnan (2017): First sitting judge sentenced to jail (for contempt of SC), not impeachment
- Salaries of SC/HC judges are charged to Consolidated Fund of India (Article 112)
- After retirement, SC judges cannot plead in the same court
Connection to this news: Justice Varma becomes at least the fourth judge in post-independence India to resign under the shadow of impeachment proceedings, continuing the pattern where the process acts as a deterrent to completion rather than a mechanism delivering a verdict.
In-House Procedure and Supreme Court's Role
Before parliamentary impeachment is triggered, the Supreme Court has an "in-house procedure" for inquiry into allegations against judges. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Chief Justice of India can constitute a committee to examine charges. If the committee finds a prima facie case, the judge is advised to resign voluntarily; if he refuses, the CJI can recommend to the President/Prime Minister that impeachment proceedings be initiated. This informal but important mechanism is meant to preserve institutional dignity while maintaining accountability.
- In-house procedure: Developed by the Supreme Court; not statutory, but follows established norms
- Chief Justice of India plays a central role as gatekeeper
- CJI may place the report before a Full Court for decision on further action
- The procedure was followed in the Yashwant Varma case — a CJI-constituted committee examined the cash recovery
- Lack of a statutory judicial conduct commission remains a major accountability gap in India's judicial system
Connection to this news: The in-house inquiry by the CJI-appointed committee in the months after March 2025 preceded the parliamentary motion — illustrating the two-track accountability system India uses for its higher judiciary.
Key Facts & Data
- Cash recovery incident: March 14, 2025, at Justice Varma's official Delhi residence
- Resignation submitted: April 9, 2026
- Impeachment motion supporters: Over 140 Lok Sabha members
- Article 124(4): Grounds for removal — proved misbehaviour or incapacity
- Minimum signatures for Lok Sabha motion: 100 members; Rajya Sabha: 50 members
- Judges (Inquiry) Act enacted: 1968
- No judge has been successfully impeached in India since independence (despite 6 attempts)
- Three prior judges resigned before impeachment proceedings concluded: Soumitra Sen (2011), P.D. Dinakaran (2011), and now Yashwant Varma (2026)
- After resignation, Justice Varma loses judicial immunity — prosecution becomes legally possible