From burnt cash to possibly the first impeachment of a judge: The Yashwant Varma saga explained
A fire at a judge's official residence in March 2025 led to the discovery of large quantities of burnt currency in an outhouse/storeroom, triggering an in-house inquiry by the judiciary.
A three-member in-house committee (comprising two High Court Chief Justices and one High Court judge) found the cash recovery charge proved and recommended removal; its report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister.
Members of Parliament from both Houses subsequently submitted impeachment motions; the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion and constituted a statutory three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The judge resigned by submitting his resignation directly to the President in April 2026 while the statutory inquiry was still underway; the inquiry committee has continued its proceedings and submitted findings to Parliament holding the charges proved, with the impeachment process expected to be taken up formally in an upcoming Parliament session.
Constitutional Removal Process for Judges (Article 124)
Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure and can be removed only through a special constitutional process, not by executive action, to protect judicial independence. This process is popularly (though loosely) called "impeachment," though the Constitution itself does not use that word for judges.
Key Details
- Article 124(4) provides that a Supreme Court judge can be removed only by an order of the President, passed after an address by each House of Parliament, on the ground of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity."
- The removal motion requires a majority of the total membership of that House AND a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, in the same session.
- Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to regulate by law the procedure for investigation and proof of misbehaviour/incapacity — this law is the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- Articles 217 and 218 extend the same process (via Article 124) to High Court judges.
The judge in this case was formally investigated first through an internal judicial mechanism (an in-house committee set up by the Chief Justice of India, which has no statutory backing but is a judiciary-evolved practice since the 1990s) and then through the constitutional/statutory route once MPs moved a removal motion, illustrating the two-track system of judicial accountability in India.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
This is the enabling law under Article 124(5) that operationalises the constitutional removal process. It lays down how a motion for removal is admitted and investigated before it can be voted upon in Parliament.
Key Details
- A removal motion needs to be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members before the presiding officer (Speaker/Chairman) can admit it.
- On admission, the presiding officer constitutes a three-member committee: a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a "distinguished jurist" — to investigate the charges framed against the judge.
- If the committee finds the judge guilty, its report goes to Parliament; only then can the substantive motion for removal be moved and debated in the House(s), followed by the two-thirds vote.
- The Act does not have express provisions on what happens if a judge resigns mid-inquiry — a legal gap this case has brought into sharp focus, since resignation removes the judge from office but does not automatically terminate a statutory inquiry already constituted.
This is on track to be independent India's first case where a judge's removal motion proceeds all the way to a parliamentary vote and full report despite resignation, since all four prior attempts (against Justices Ramaswami, Sen, Dinakaran, and Ganguly-related motions) either failed to secure the required majority, were withdrawn, or ended before completion.
Precedents in Judicial Removal Attempts
Before this case, no judge had ever been removed from office through the full constitutional impeachment process in India, despite multiple attempts.
Key Details
- Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): the first impeachment motion in Lok Sabha; a committee found him guilty on most charges, but the motion failed in the House because the ruling party's members abstained, denying it the required two-thirds.
- Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): the Rajya Sabha passed a removal motion against the Calcutta High Court judge (for financial misappropriation as a court-appointed receiver) — the first time either House actually passed such a motion — but he resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote, ending the process.
- Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011) faced a similar process but resigned before completion.
Because the current judge resigned only after the in-house committee's adverse findings but while the statutory inquiry committee continued, the pending question is whether Parliament can still complete a removal motion and vote against a person no longer in judicial office — a novel scenario since Soumitra Sen's resignation had ended his process altogether.
- Article 124(4): removal needs (a) majority of total membership of the House and (b) two-thirds of members present and voting, in the same sitting.
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: motion needs 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha signatures to be admitted.
- The in-house inquiry committee in this case comprised three sitting High Court judges/chief justices and submitted its report in May 2025.
- 1993 (Justice V. Ramaswami) and 2011 (Justice Soumitra Sen) are the two prior instances where impeachment processes advanced furthest without resulting in removal.