CivilsWisdom.
Updated · Today
Polity & Governance May 18, 2026 3 min read Daily brief · #9 of 34

Cash recovery row: Inquiry committee submits report on Justice Yashwant Varma to LS speaker

The three-member Judges Inquiry Committee, constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, submitted its report on Justice Yashwant Varma to Lok Sabha Spea...

GS Paper 2

What Happened

  • The three-member Judges Inquiry Committee, constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, submitted its report on Justice Yashwant Varma to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on May 18, 2026.
  • The inquiry was initiated following the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash from a storeroom at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi during a fire on March 14, 2025.
  • The reconstituted committee — chaired by Supreme Court Judge Justice Aravind Kumar and including Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Senior Advocate BV Acharya — was tasked with examining grounds for removal under the Act.
  • The Speaker confirmed the report will be laid before both Houses of Parliament in due course, expected during the monsoon session commencing July 2026.
  • Justice Varma had resigned from the Allahabad High Court with effect from April 9, 2026, a development that legal experts note renders further impeachment proceedings constitutionally infructuous, since Article 124(4) applies only to sitting judges.

Static Topic Bridges

Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and Article 124(4)

The removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge is governed by Article 124(4) of the Constitution read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to regulate the procedure for investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge. Article 218 extends the same provisions to High Court judges. The 1968 Act creates a statutory mechanism for constituting an inquiry committee before any removal address can be placed before Parliament.

  • A motion for removal must be supported by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members, and accepted by the Speaker or Chairman respectively.
  • The inquiry committee must comprise: a sitting Supreme Court judge (or Chief Justice), a sitting High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist.
  • The judge under inquiry has the right to cross-examine witnesses before the committee.
  • Both Houses must pass the address by an absolute majority of their total membership AND by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, in the same parliamentary session, for the President to act on it.

Connection to this news: The committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 has completed its statutory function by submitting its report; the next procedural step is presentation before Parliament, though the question of infructuousness due to Justice Varma's resignation adds a novel constitutional dimension.

In-House Inquiry vs. Statutory Inquiry

The Indian judiciary has developed a two-track accountability mechanism. An in-house inquiry is an internal administrative process initiated by the Chief Justice of India, which does not result in removal but can recommend transfer or request voluntary resignation. A statutory inquiry under the 1968 Act is initiated by Parliament and can lead to removal through an address to the President.

  • The in-house inquiry in this case was conducted by a CJI-appointed committee comprising three High Court Chief Justices; it submitted its report in May 2025 finding prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.
  • Only after the in-house inquiry recommended further action did the parliamentary motion and the Judges Inquiry Committee under the 1968 Act come into play.
  • Over 200 Members of Parliament had signed the removal motion in July 2025, leading to the committee's formal constitution by the Speaker on August 12, 2025.
  • The committee was reconstituted on March 6, 2026 with its final composition.

Connection to this news: The report submission marks the completion of the statutory inquiry phase; the parliamentary deliberation phase would ordinarily follow, but Justice Varma's resignation creates an uncharted constitutional situation.

Key Facts & Data

  • Fire at Justice Varma's official Delhi residence: March 14, 2025
  • In-house inquiry committee (CJI-appointed) submitted report: May 2025
  • Removal motion supported by: over 200 MPs (July 2025)
  • Judges Inquiry Committee constituted by Speaker: August 12, 2025
  • Committee reconstituted: March 6, 2026
  • Committee composition: Justice Aravind Kumar (SC), Justice Shree Chandrashekhar (Bombay HC CJ), BV Acharya (Senior Advocate, Karnataka HC)
  • Justice Varma resigned from Allahabad HC: April 9, 2026
  • Report submitted to Lok Sabha Speaker: May 18, 2026
  • Minimum MPs required to move removal motion: 100 (Lok Sabha) or 50 (Rajya Sabha)
  • Parliamentary majority required: Absolute majority of total membership AND two-thirds of members present and voting in both Houses
On this page
  1. What Happened
  2. Static Topic Bridges
  3. Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and Article 124(4)
  4. In-House Inquiry vs. Statutory Inquiry
  5. Key Facts & Data
Display