Justice Yashwant Varma Impeachment News: The Supreme Court has rejected a plea filed by Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma seeking to quash impeachment proceedings initiated against him, clearing the way for a parliamentary probe into allegations of corruption linked to unaccounted cash found at his residence.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict after reserving its decision earlier this month. The ruling upheld the Lok Sabha Speaker’s authority to constitute a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
The case stems from a fire incident at Justice Varma’s official residence on March 14, 2025, during which firefighters reportedly recovered large amounts of unaccounted cash. The incident triggered widespread controversy and allegations of corruption. Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing, but the matter prompted swift institutional action.
READ: Resignation Forfeits Pension, But Gratuity Is a Statutory Right: Supreme Court
Following the incident, Justice Varma was transferred from the Delhi High Court to his parent Allahabad High Court and was stripped of judicial responsibilities pending further action. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry and later advised Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. Varma declined to step down.
In August, the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted a motion brought by Members of Parliament seeking the judge’s removal and constituted an inquiry committee. Justice Varma challenged this move, arguing that the Speaker acted unilaterally without joint consultation with the Rajya Sabha Chairman, as required under a proviso to Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
READ: ‘Sar tan se juda’ slogan challenges India’s integrity, incites rebellion: Allahabad High Court
Senior advocates representing Justice Varma contended that since impeachment notices were submitted in both Houses of Parliament, the Speaker could not proceed independently. However, the Lok Sabha’s Secretary General countered that the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman had rejected the motion, rendering the proviso inapplicable.
The Supreme Court agreed with the parliamentary functionaries, noting that there was no legal bar preventing the Lok Sabha Speaker from continuing with the impeachment process even if the Rajya Sabha did not admit the motion. The Court also expressed disagreement with the view that rejection in one House automatically nullifies proceedings in the other.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha authorities, while a battery of senior counsel appeared for Justice Varma. With the plea dismissed, the impeachment inquiry is now set to proceed.
