Inquiry panel probing allegations against Justice Varma submits report to Speaker

A three-member Judges Inquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 submitted its report to the Lok Sabha Speaker on May 18, 2026, concl...

What Happened

A three-member Judges Inquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 submitted its report to the Lok Sabha Speaker on May 18, 2026, concluding the inquiry into allegations against a sitting High Court judge.
The inquiry arose from the discovery of a large quantity of unaccounted cash at the official residence of the judge in March 2025, during firefighting operations at an outhouse on the premises.
146 members of the Lok Sabha had signed an impeachment motion seeking the judge's removal, providing the constitutional basis for initiating the inquiry under the Act.
The judge, who had been transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court following the cash discovery, resigned from judicial office in April 2026 before the committee submitted its findings.
The report is required by statute to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, after which Parliament may proceed with the address process under Article 124(4) read with Article 218 of the Constitution.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 124(4) and Removal of Judges: Constitutional Framework

The removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges is governed by a special constitutional procedure designed to protect judicial independence while providing accountability.

Article 124(4) governs removal of Supreme Court judges; it applies to High Court judges through Article 218.
A judge can be removed only on grounds of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity."
The removal requires: (a) an address by each House of Parliament; (b) supported by a majority of total membership of that House; and (c) a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting in that session.
This is a special majority — stricter than an ordinary majority but different from the absolute two-thirds required for constitutional amendments.
The motion to initiate the inquiry can be signed by: at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha, or at least 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
Presiding officers (Speaker or Chairman) have discretion to admit or reject the motion at the threshold stage.

Connection to this news: The 146-member Lok Sabha motion crossed the 100-member threshold, giving the Speaker legal authority to constitute the inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. With the judge's resignation, Parliament's formal removal process is moot, but the committee's report remains a constitutional record.

Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Statutory Inquiry Mechanism

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is the parliamentary statute that operationalises Article 124(5)'s mandate for Parliament to regulate the procedure for presenting an address for removal of a judge.

The Act requires a three-member committee to investigate charges against a judge: comprising a sitting Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist.
In the Justice Varma case, the committee initially comprised a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, and a senior advocate; it was later reconstituted with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court replacing the original High Court member.
The committee examines charges, takes evidence, and submits its report to the presiding officer of the House in which the motion was admitted.
If the committee finds the charges proved, the presiding officer lays the report before both Houses, and Parliament may then proceed with the address to the President.
The Act came into force on 1 January 1969; it is supplemented by the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969.

Connection to this news: The report submitted to the Speaker is the culmination of the Act's inquiry procedure. The statutory requirement to lay it before Parliament ensures public and constitutional accountability even after the judge's resignation.

In-House Procedure: Judiciary's Internal Accountability Mechanism

Prior to the formal Judges (Inquiry) Act process, the Supreme Court has developed an internal "in-house procedure" for investigating complaints against judges without involving the executive or legislature.

The in-house procedure was adopted in 1999 following the recommendations arising from the K. Veeraswami case (1991) and was formalised through a resolution of the Full Court.
Under this procedure, complaints against a High Court judge are first examined by the Chief Justice of that High Court; serious complaints are referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The CJI may constitute a three-member committee of High Court Chief Justices to investigate the allegations.
In the Justice Varma case, an in-house committee comprising the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court, and a Karnataka High Court judge was constituted by the then-CJI in March 2025.
The in-house committee's findings — that the charges against the judge warranted consideration for impeachment — triggered the next stage: the formal Judges (Inquiry) Act process in Parliament.
The in-house procedure is not statutory; it is a self-regulatory mechanism and does not involve any punishment power beyond recommending transfer or requesting voluntary resignation.

Connection to this news: The Justice Varma case is a landmark instance where both mechanisms — the in-house procedure and the statutory Judges (Inquiry) Act process — were sequentially triggered, illustrating how judicial accountability operates in a multi-stage framework.

Judicial Independence and Accountability: Constitutional Balance

The removal procedure's high threshold is deliberately designed to insulate judges from political pressure, but this design is also critiqued for making accountability difficult.

No judge of the Supreme Court has ever been successfully impeached in India's constitutional history.
The only attempt — against Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993 — failed in the Lok Sabha when the motion did not secure the requisite two-thirds majority.
The K. Veeraswami case (SC, 1991): held that prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India is required before a First Information Report (FIR) can be registered against a sitting Supreme Court judge — reinforcing the need for internal accountability first.
Judicial accountability reforms discussed: Judicial Appointments Commission (struck down in NJAC case, 2015), Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (2010, lapsed), and periodic calls for a statutory Judicial Conduct Commission.

Connection to this news: The Justice Varma case — involving alleged unaccounted cash found at a judicial residence — has renewed calls for a statutory misconduct framework that sits between the informal in-house procedure and the near-impossible impeachment route.

Key Facts & Data

Triggering incident: Discovery of unaccounted cash at an official judicial residence during firefighting operations, March 14, 2025.
Court of service at time of incident: Delhi High Court.
Subsequent transfer: Allahabad High Court.
Judge's resignation: April 9, 2026.
Inquiry committee report submitted: May 18, 2026, to Lok Sabha Speaker.
Number of Lok Sabha members who signed the impeachment motion: 146 (threshold: 100).
Committee composition: Three-member committee under Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — one Supreme Court judge (Justice Aravind Kumar, presiding), one High Court Chief Justice, one senior jurist.
Constitutional provision: Article 124(4) read with Article 218 (removal of HC judges); special majority required: majority of total membership + two-thirds of members present and voting, in each House.
Historical precedent: No successful impeachment of a judge in India's history.
Last attempt at impeachment: Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) — failed in Lok Sabha.