Justice Yashwant Varma Resigns Amid Impeachment Proceedings: A Judicial Controversy

Justice Yashwant Varma Steps Down: Ending the Impeachment Standoff

In a dramatic development for the Indian judiciary, Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court submitted his resignation to the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, on April 9, 2026. This resignation comes in the wake of intensifying parliamentary impeachment proceedings aimed at his removal from office.

The 'Cash-at-Home' Scandal and Inquiry

The controversy traces back to March 2025, when a fire at Justice Varma's Delhi residence led to the alleged discovery of approximately ₹15 crore in unaccounted cash. While the judge maintained that the cash did not belong to him, a Supreme Court in-house committee found the allegations grave enough to warrant a deeper probe.

Following this, 146 Members of Parliament moved a motion for his removal. In response, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted a three-member Judges Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Justice Varma, however, withdrew from the proceedings, labelling the inquiry as "unfair" and biased.

Constitutional Provisions for Removal

Under Article 218 of the Constitution of India, read with Article 124(4), a High Court judge can be removed only by an order of the President on the grounds of "proven misbehaviour" or "incapacity." the process requires:

• Signature Mandate: A motion signed by at least 100 MPs (Lok Sabha) or 50 MPs (Rajya Sabha).


• Special Majority: Approval by a majority of the total membership of each House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Legal Implications of Resignation

By resigning before the parliamentary vote, the formal impeachment process effectively terminates. However, legal experts suggest that criminal proceedings could still be initiated if the Chief Justice of India grants sanction for prosecution. Notably, as it was a voluntary resignation rather than a formal removal, Justice Varma remains entitled to standard pensionary benefits.

For TNPSC and Law aspirants, this case provides a critical case study on judicial accountability and the rigid constitutional safeguards protecting the independence of the higher judiciary in India.