Impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma have officially commenced after 152 Lok Sabha MPs submitted a signed memorandum to Speaker Om Birla, triggering a rare and serious constitutional process. Justice Varma, a sitting High Court judge, faces allegations of grave misconduct following the recovery of unaccounted and partially burnt cash from his official residence in Delhi.
The impeachment motion—filed under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution—has garnered wide bipartisan support. Signatories span multiple parties, including the BJP, Congress, TDP, JDU, CPM, and others. Prominent leaders such as Anurag Thakur, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Rahul Gandhi, Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Supriya Sule, KC Venugopal, and PP Chaudhary are among those backing the move.
In the Rajya Sabha, Vice President and Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar confirmed receipt of a parallel motion signed by over 50 MPs. With both Houses having crossed the constitutional threshold for initiating impeachment, the Secretary-General has been directed to begin procedural steps. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is expected to announce the formation of an inquiry committee shortly—likely comprising a sitting Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a respected jurist—as stipulated under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.
The central allegation stems from a March 15 incident, where a fire led to the discovery of large volumes of charred currency notes at Justice Varma’s government accommodation. A Supreme Court-appointed panel concluded that the judge and his family exercised control over the storeroom where the cash was stored, and deemed the misconduct serious enough to justify his removal.
Justice Varma, however, denies wrongdoing and has filed a challenge in the Supreme Court, arguing that the inquiry panel violated due process and overlooked key evidence. His legal team maintains that the process was prejudiced and that his rights—as both an individual and a constitutional authority—were compromised.
This unfolding saga has reignited debates about judicial accountability and transparency. While Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju emphasized bipartisan consensus behind the motion, the case comes at a time of rising tension between the judiciary and the executive. Some BJP leaders have accused the Supreme Court of encroaching upon legislative and executive domains, fueling speculation that this impeachment could have broader political implications.
If the inquiry committee finds the allegations valid, both Houses of Parliament must then pass the motion by a two-thirds majority before the President can formally remove the judge. The case now becomes a significant test of constitutional checks and balances—and of public trust in India’s higher judiciary.
