Cash-at-home row: Justice Yashwant Varma Resigns, Brings End To Impeachment Proceedings

Allahabad High Court’s Justice Yashwant Varma has resigned from his post to President Droupadi Murmu, putting an effective stop to the parliamentary probe initiated into the alleged discovery of unaccounted money at his official residence in Delhi last year.

In a letter  Justice Varma said he had tendered his resignation “with deep anguish and immediate effect.” Further, he said, “While I do not propose to burden your august office with the reasons which have constrained me to submit this missive… It has been an honour to serve in this office.”

He resigned amid ongoing investigations for his ouster in parliament. According to the Lok Sabha, an inquiry against him had been launched according to the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, through a motion admitted in August 2025. Speaker Om Birla had formed a three-person committee to investigate the charges against him.

The move means that the entire process of impeachment will be discontinued because the legal process for removing a judge stops when the judge resigns. This development marks the end of what was a lengthy and complicated process of impeachment that had stalled earlier this year due to the retirement of one of the members of the committee investigating him.

The controversy traces back to March 2025, when a fire broke out at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, leading to the discovery of unaccounted cash by firefighters at the scene.

At the time of the incident, Justice Varma and his wife were travelling in Madhya Pradesh, leaving only his daughter and elderly mother at home. The episode drew further attention after footage surfaced showing currency notes burning, intensifying public scrutiny.

A subsequent examination by the Supreme Court found the judge’s explanation to be unsatisfactory. Then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, ordered an internal inquiry on March 22, appointing a three-member panel to investigate the matter. The committee, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court, began its work on March 25 and submitted its findings on May 4.

Based on the findings, the Chief Justice requested Justice Varma either resign or be formally removed from office. Having failed to resign, Justice Varma's report was presented along with his comments to the President and Prime Minister for future steps. For now, Justice Varma was reassigned to the Allahabad High Court, where he had worked before his elevation to the Supreme Court.

By August 2025, the matter had moved to Parliament, with Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla setting up a three-member inquiry panel under the Judges (Inquiry) Act to examine the allegations. The panel initially included Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and senior advocate B. Vasudeva Acharya. Following Justice Shrivastava’s retirement in March, he was replaced by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar of the Bombay High Court.

In January this year, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the proceedings, affirming that the Speaker was within his authority to constitute the inquiry committee, clearing the way for the parliamentary process to continue. The motion calling for the removal of Justice Varma was supported by 146 MPs.

The report was subsequently sent to the President and Prime Minister via the Chief Justice as Justice Varma refused to resign at this point. In addition, some relevant documents regarding the incident were made available by the Supreme Court to the general public, which included visual proof from the fire itself.

Former Law Minister Kapil Sibal had defended Justice Yashwant Varma, arguing that any move to impeach him based solely on the Supreme Court’s internal inquiry would be unconstitutional.

Justice Varma had approached the Supreme Court challenging both the report which had found him guilty and also against the recommendation of the former Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, to launch impeachment proceedings. The court did not accept the plea of Justice Varma, which was in addition to the plea filed against the Speaker's decision to set up an inquiry committee, which was dismissed earlier this year.

It was argued by Sibal before the bench, consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, in response to the writ petition by Justice Varma regarding the recovery of cash from his premises. It also included arguments against the recommendations of the inquiry panel as well as the communication sent by the then Chief Justice to the President and the Prime Minister of India.

The point raised by Sibal was that the Chief Justice of India has no power to initiate impeachment proceedings because this can only be done by Members of Parliament. According to him, the President and the Prime Minister have nothing to do with starting the process, and the government cannot initiate nor sanction the proceedings.

Sibal maintained that the main motive behind the move by the government was to dilute the collegium system. He accused the government of being selective in its approach to these proceedings as there was no sense of urgency when it came to the case of Justice Shekhar Yadav, who has been served with an impeachment notice by the opposition members for making some controversial comments last year.

At a press conference, Sibal criticised the Delhi Police for their handling of the fire incident at Justice Varma’s residence and the subsequent discovery of burnt cash. He argued that basic procedures were not followed and suggested that the sequence of events raised serious concerns about institutional conduct and intent.

Questioning the police response, he asked why no First Information Report was registered, and noted the absence of standard procedures such as a seizure memo, a panchnama, or securing the site. He also pointed out inquiry committee itself stated that it had failed to investigate why police officials had abandoned the scene and how the family members knew about the cash. He questioned the purpose of the inquiry in light of these omissions.

With his resignation now in effect, the impeachment proceedings against a sitting High Court judge has drawn to a close.