Published On: February 3rd 2026
Authored By: Kaustav Chakraborty
Calcutta University
ABSTRACT
A tragic accident of fire broke out at a store room attached to the government bungalow of Justice Yashwant Varma in Delhi at around 11:35 p.m., on March 14, this year.[1] The sudden turn of events, which at first glance looked like a tragic possible failure of accommodation by the government to one of its highest-ranked officers, transformed into perhaps, one of the nightmares for the Judicial System.
The assigned firefighters tamed the fire within half an hour of their arrival and, satisfied with their efforts, went back to the Safdarjung fire station, classifying the accident as a “small fire[2]. But, later on Friday, reports surfaced alleging a recovery of cash from his premises, though the Delhi Fire Service Chief Atul Garg[3] had no mention of the discovery of money during their fire operation, denying the media reports.
This incident shook the foundation of the legal fraternity and raised serious concerns, casting a shadow of doubt over the Judiciary’s integrity.
What is Impeachment?
Impeachment is the process followed in deciding the removal of a person from a position, from exercising all the powers and responsibilities that the position demands. This entire process of removal, usually applying to the President, judges of judicial courts, and other constitutional positions, is based on a charge of misconduct against such a person.[4]
The procedure of the impeachment is provided in Article 124(4) r/w Article 124(2)(b) of the Indian Constitution, where Article 124(2) states that “Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years provided that: (b)a Judge may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (4)[5]”; with clause (4) stating “A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[6]. While Article 124 mainly addresses the removal of Supreme Court judges, the process for removing High Court judges such as Justice Yashwant Varma is comparable under Article 217(1) (b) of the Constitution, which specifies that “a judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner outlined in clause (4) of Article 124.”[7]
This effectively signifies that the same rigorous standard of “demonstrated wrongdoing or inability,” supported by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, is applicable to High Court judges as well. The specific procedures are regulated by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which outlines how an inquiry should take place, defines what qualifies as evidence, and describes how Parliament can undertake an impeachment motion.[8]
In the situation involving Justice Yashwant Varma, after a significant amount of suspected unreported cash was found post-fire at his home, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna established a three-member internal committee to probe the claims. The panel allegedly determined that Justice Varma maintained hidden control over the storage room and did not provide any credible account for the source of the money.[9]
Subsequently, the Chief Justice officially advised his dismissal, leading the Union Government to contemplate starting impeachment actions during the Monsoon Session of Parliament. If this continues, it could be the inaugural case in independent India of a High Court judge being dismissed through impeachment.
Mere Misconduct or Procedural Breakdown:
The saga revolving around the alleged misconduct of Justice Yashwant Varma has dramatically transformed into a constitutional crisis of process and power. Once the in-house committee conclusions were reached, and Justice Varma was recommended for removal, a public impeachment discussion was begun by the Union Government. However, this poses a very serious procedural issue.
Based on the Judges (Inquiry) Act[10], 1968, it is clearly stated that it is not the Executive Branch of Government, but Members of Parliament (MPs), who have the authority to start the process for a judge’s removal. This Act, which cites it in Article 124(5) of the Constitution, stipulates a rigorous step-by-step procedure:
- In the Lok Sabha, at least 100 MPs must endorse the motion.
- In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 MPs must do so.
- The motion must then be accepted by the Speaker or Chairperson, who has the option to approve or deny it.
- If accepted, a three-person inquiry panel is formed to examine the allegations under Section 3(2) of the Act.
The most important point is that no part of the Executive Government has any function in starting or controlling this process. It, however, appears that the government’s current stance suggests overreach, likely breaching the very structure that is intended to protect judicial independence.[11]
Absence of Transparency and MPs in the shadow:
The In-house report has been flagged as “classified”[12]. How, as a matter of policy, can MPs be allowed to sign a removal motion when they do not have access to the in-house report, which contains evidence of wrongdoing against Justice Varma?
A gets to the heart of democratic accountability. The in-house reports are procured by the Prime Minister’s Office, a different branch of the government that holds onto the reports without releasing them to the MPs. MPs have the exclusive right in the process wherein they are the only ones who can exercise constitutional authority, and are the constitutional actors who are being deprived of “making an uninformed constitutional decision.” This is a miscarriage of justice.
The Judges Inquiry Act 1968 firmly states that there is a due process that is required to be followed for Justice Varma. This process involves examining the rights of an individual without due process, impeachment challenges this process.[13]
Legislative vs Judiciary:
With regards to Justice Yashwant Varma, it is not only testing compliance with procedures, but also elevating the possibility of political manipulation with respect to the judiciary. It raises suspicion of bias when the Executive tries to remove someone from office based on a non-statutory report, especially when that non-statutory document exists in an area allocated for Parliament.
This execution of governance undermines Justice Varma’s entitlement to due process and erodes the judicial system’s autonomy. While there is great value in accountability and transparency, strategically leaking unsubstantiated claims to the media while the essential documents are withheld from Parliament is not constitutional governance—this is a political spectacle.
Conclusion: A Test for the Constitution, Not Just for One Judge:
The issue of Justice Yashwant Varma goes beyond the boundaries of a single judge and a single scandal. It is a question of how India, as a constitutional democracy, seeks to grapple with the issue of judicial accountability. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 was passed to ensure that no judge is removed without a proper process being followed, while at the same time ensuring that no processes are designed in order to unreasonably and capriciously remove a judge.
The in-house report, although it has ethical merit, cannot be the basis on which an impeachment motion is prepared. The Executive also must not be seen to interfere with, or seek to control or dictate this process. Parliament, through its Members of Parliament, should be allowed sufficient access to all the materials, including the in-house report, and must therefore be permitted to act strictly according to the provisions of the Constitution and the laws.
If India is to be a nation on the backbone of the trust of the people, the judicial system must prove to these people that even the custodians of the Constitution are bound under the law, and subjected to checks and balances—but only through a constitutional way. The day the process turns as dubious as the allegation, the entire system captures its legitimacy.
References
[1] Saurav Das, A judge, a fire, and a very flammable truth, The Hindu, (July 07, 2025, 8:11 AM), https://frontline.thehindu.com/columns/yashwant-varma-cash-scandalindialaw/article69730959.ece
[2] Shekhar Singh, Rs 15 Crore Found or Not? Mystery Deepens Around What Happened at Justice Varma’s Residence, N. Indian Express (June 7, 2025, 8:28 AM), https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Mar/21/rs-15-crore found-or-not-mystery-deepens-around-what-happened-at-justice-varmas-residence.
[3] Delhi Fire Service, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (July 7, 2025, 9:30 AM), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Fire_Service.
[4] Impeachment, ClearTax Glossary, (July 07, 2025, 11:10 AM), https://cleartax.in/glossary/impeachment.
[5] India Const. art. 124, (July 7, 2025, 2:30 PM), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1164880/
[6] India Const. art. 124, (July 7, 2025, 2:45 PM), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1164880/.
[7] India Const. art. 217, July 7, 2025, 3:30 PM, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1682952/.
[8] Divyanshu Kr. Srivastava & Sooraj Sharma, A Review of the Impeachment of Judges in India & the United States: More Political than Judicial?, SSRN, 2011
[9] Saurav Das, Justice Varma Impeachment: Why the Government’s Reported Plan to Bypass the Judges (Inquiry) Act Procedure Should Concern Us, The Leaflet, (July 07, 2025, 12:10 PM), https://theleaflet.in/judicial accountability/justice-varma-impeachment-why-the-governments-reported-plan-to-bypass-the-judges-inquiry-act procedure-should-concern-us
[10] The Judges (Inquiry) Act, No. 51 of 1968, Acts of Parliament, 1968 (India), (July 10, 2025, 9:44 AM), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1539/2/A1968-51.pdf.
[11] Saurav Das, Justice Varma Impeachment: Why the Government’s Reported Plan to Bypass the Judges (Inquiry) Act Procedure Should Concern Us, The Leaflet, (July 07, 2025, 4:10 PM), https://theleaflet.in/judicial accountability/justice-varma-impeachment-why-the-governments-reported-plan-to-bypass-the-judges-inquiry-act procedure-should-concern-us
12 Tribune News Service, SC’s in-house probe report in Justice Varma case has no constitutional relevance: Sibal, The Tribune, (July 7, 2025, 4:41 PM), https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/scs-in-house-probe-report-in justice-varma-case-has-no-constitutional-relevance-sibal/
[13] Judges (Inquiry) Act, No. 51 of 1968, S. 3, Acts of Parliament, 1968 (India), (July 10, 2025, 10:30 AM), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1539/2/A1968-51.pdf
