The Case for the Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma

 It is a troubling anomaly that, more than a month after tendering his resignation on April 9, 2026, Justice Yashwant Varma remains a judge of the Allahabad High Court on paper. While his resignation awaits formal acceptance by the President, the shadows of the March 2025 discovery—unaccounted, half-burnt currency found at his residence—continue to loom over the integrity of the higher judiciary.

The Investigative Trail

The evidence against Justice Varma is substantial. Following a fire at his official residence, an In-house Enquiry Committee found "strong evidence" that the judge exercised "tacit or active control" over the storeroom where the cash was discovered. When the judge refused to resign voluntarily in May 2025, the matter escalated to Parliament. On August 12, 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted an impeachment motion backed by over 140 MPs and constituted a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Justice Varma’s response followed a familiar script of procedural delay. He challenged the inquiry in the Supreme Court, claiming the Speaker's unilateral formation of the committee was invalid. In January 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed his petition, ruling that safeguards for judges cannot be allowed to paralyse the removal process. Having exhausted his legal shields, the judge resigned just as the inquiry panel was set to conclude its probe.

The Constitutional Lacuna

Legally, this situation tests the limits of Article 217(1). While the 1978 Gopal Chandra Misra precedent suggests a resignation is typically final upon receipt, the spirit of the law was never intended to provide a sanctuary for "proved misbehaviour."

By requesting "immediate effect," Justice Varma is not merely seeking retirement; he is seeking to render the parliamentary process infructuous. This strategy has been used before to evade the ultimate constitutional censure:

  • Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion but before the Lok Sabha could vote.
  • Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011) resigned before proceedings reached their logical end.

The Need for a Final Verdict

Allowing a resignation to serve as a "get-out-of-jail-free" card sets a dangerous precedent. It allows a judge to avoid the loss of pension and retirement benefits that a formal impeachment would entail, effectively rewarding a strategic exit.

Accountability is not just about removal; it is about transparency. The public has a right to know the origin of the "half-burnt" cash and the extent of the alleged corruption. To let Justice Varma "wriggle out" via a resignation letter is an admission of systemic helplessness.

For the sake of public trust, the President should consider delaying acceptance of the resignation until the Judges Inquiry Committee submits its findings. Impeachment proceedings must reach their logical conclusion to ensure that the writing on the wall is not an invitation to flee, but a mandate for justice.

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anchor cannot be held responsible for the views of panellists

  The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan delivered a remarkable judgment on 13th June, which should be praised for promoting the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Constitution of India. On 6th June, the Andhra police arrested one Mr K Srinivas Rao, an anchor of the Telugu TV channel Sakshi, for allegedly abetting defamatory and derogatory remarks made by a panellist on his show about Amravati, the new capital of Andhra Pradesh. Amravati is located very close to Vijayawada. The judges stated that the anchor Rao did not make any statement himself; rather, it was one of the participants who contemptuously remarked that Amravati was becoming the ‘capital of sex workers. There is no doubt that these days, the panellists are invited by the TV channels that subscribe to the views and ideas of those particular channels. They are given the freedom to speak only if they adhere to the channels' views; if their opinions do no...
Read more

India has instilled fear in Pakistanis by calling their nuclear bluff

India has decisively defeated Pakistan in a war that lasted only three days; otherwise, Pakistan would not have requested or even agreed to a ceasefire. Wars between even very strong and weak countries have often continued for months. The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, was unique; it lasted for two decades. It was fought in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. North Vietnam received support from China and the Soviet Union, while the South was backed by the United States, Thailand, Australia, and South Korea. The war commenced on 1 November 1955 and concluded on 30 April 1975. The US began direct military involvement in Vietnam in 1964, which lasted until 1973. Today, the Vietnamese refer to this conflict as the Resistance War Against America. From 1965 to 1973, the US expended $120 billion on the conflict. An estimated 58,200 Americans lost their lives, while around 110,000 were injured. Two million Vietnamese perished, and an additional twelve million became refugees...
Read more

Media's freedom is a fundamental right and an essential part of the constitution; any campaign to elevate it to the status of a fourth pillar is sheer absurdity

      Some journalists and their so-called organisations seem to possess an abysmally low or almost non-existent understanding of the Indian constitution. They are advocating for the media to be granted the status of a fourth pillar, akin to the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive. The notion of the press as the "fourth pillar" of democracy is widely acknowledged, particularly in democratic nations, though it is not a formal designation recognised across all countries. It serves as a metaphor for the press's role in holding power accountable and informing the public. In India, the press is often described as the fourth pillar and is constitutionally protected; however, it operates within a framework of laws that balance freedom with other societal values, such as national integrity. While freedom of the press is explicitly provided under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, in India, it is implied under Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the freedom of speec...
Read more