What Happened
- Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court submitted his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on April 9, 2026, amid impeachment proceedings in the Lok Sabha
- The controversy originated from a fire at his official residence in New Delhi (March 2025) when firefighters allegedly discovered stacks of burnt currency notes — some reportedly over 1.5 feet high — in a storeroom near servants' quarters
- Over 146 Lok Sabha members signed a motion seeking his removal; the Lok Sabha Speaker had admitted the motion and constituted an inquiry committee
- Justice Varma denied the cash belonged to him and noted he was in Bhopal at the time of the incident
- The resignation rendered the impeachment proceedings infructuous — no Presidential address for removal could now follow since the judge was no longer in office
Static Topic Bridges
Constitutional Framework for Judge Impeachment (Articles 124, 217, 218)
The removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges is governed by Articles 124(4), 217(1)(b), and 218 of the Constitution, read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Constitution makes judicial removal a deliberately arduous process to protect judicial independence.
- Grounds for removal: "Proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity" — the Constitution does not define these terms, leaving them to parliamentary interpretation
- Initiation: Motion must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members; the presiding officer then decides whether to admit it
- Investigation Committee: Three-member body comprising (i) a Supreme Court judge, (ii) a High Court Chief Justice, and (iii) an eminent jurist — constituted by the presiding officer of the initiating House
- Voting threshold: Both Houses must pass the resolution by (a) a majority of total membership, AND (b) at least two-thirds of members present and voting — in the same parliamentary session
- Final step: Successful addresses from both Houses presented to the President, who issues the removal order
- Historical record: Despite six impeachment attempts since 1950, no judge has ever been successfully removed from office
Connection to this news: Justice Varma's resignation before the inquiry committee concluded its work illustrates a constitutional gap — resignation terminates the process entirely. Parliament's removal power under Article 124(4) can only operate while the judge holds office.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 provides the procedural framework for conducting inquiries under Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b). It supplements the constitutional provisions with specific procedural safeguards.
- The inquiry committee has powers of a civil court: can summon witnesses, compel document production, and examine evidence
- The charged judge receives a copy of the charges and has the right to present a written defence and cross-examine witnesses
- The committee's findings are laid before the originating House; if the committee finds misbehaviour proved, the motion proceeds to a vote
- If the initiating House passes the motion, the other House must also consider and pass it in the same session
- A resignation by the judge at any stage prior to the Presidential address terminates the process — no mechanism exists to continue proceedings against a former judge
Connection to this news: Justice Varma's resignation exploited this legislative gap. It has renewed debate on whether India needs a constitutional amendment to allow proceedings to continue to conclusion even post-resignation, to serve as a deterrent and establish a public record.
In-House Procedure vs. Formal Impeachment
The Supreme Court has developed an "in-house procedure" (1999) for addressing judicial misconduct short of full impeachment. This internal mechanism allows the Chief Justice of India to investigate complaints and recommend non-assignment of judicial work as a soft sanction.
- The in-house procedure is administrative, not statutory — it has no legal backing and cannot compel a judge's removal
- In Justice Varma's case, an in-house inquiry committee recommended his transfer from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court in 2025, before the formal impeachment motion
- The in-house procedure is criticised for opacity: no public access to findings, no defined timelines, and no independent oversight
- Judicial accountability reform proposals have included a statutory National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) — struck down in 2015 (SR Bommai test of basic structure) — and a National Judicial Oversight Tribunal
- The collegium system (Articles 124(2), 217(1)) for judicial appointments has no constitutional provision for a parallel accountability mechanism
Connection to this news: The inadequacy of the in-house procedure in deterring conduct like the cash controversy underscores the systemic accountability deficit in India's judiciary, where removal is constitutionally near-impossible and informal mechanisms are non-binding.
Key Facts & Data
- Justice Varma's official residence where cash was found: Delhi (he was then a Delhi High Court judge)
- He was later transferred to Allahabad High Court following the in-house inquiry
- 146 Lok Sabha members signed the removal motion — well above the 100-member threshold
- The inquiry committee was constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
- Resignation submitted to: President Droupadi Murmu on April 9, 2026
- No judge in India has been successfully impeached since the Constitution came into force in 1950
- Article 218 applies High Court removal provisions (same as SC) to HC judges via cross-reference to Article 124(4)
- NJAC Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in October 2015 in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India