Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has resigned following a prolonged controversy that raised serious questions about judicial accountability and institutional integrity. His resignation, submitted to the President, comes nearly a year after allegations surfaced regarding the recovery of large amounts of cash from his official residence in Delhi.
The controversy began in March last year when a fire broke out at his residence. During firefighting operations, reports emerged that stacks of cash—some described as unusually large in volume—were discovered at the site. The incident prompted immediate attention at the highest levels of the judiciary, leading to administrative action, including his transfer from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Varma has consistently denied the allegations. In his defence before a parliamentary panel, he stated that he was not present at the residence when the fire occurred and questioned why he should be held responsible for any alleged lapses. He argued that once authorities such as the police and fire department took control of the site, any failure to secure or document evidence lay with them, not with him.
As the matter escalated, formal proceedings were initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. A three-member committee—comprising senior members of the judiciary and legal fraternity—was constituted to investigate the allegations. Justice Varma challenged the validity of this inquiry before the Supreme Court, citing procedural grounds, but his plea was rejected, allowing the investigation to continue.
An earlier internal inquiry conducted within the judicial system reportedly found that the room where the cash was allegedly discovered was under the control of Justice Varma and his family members. This finding added weight to the allegations and increased the likelihood of impeachment proceedings being pursued in Parliament.
Facing an ongoing probe and the possibility of formal removal through impeachment, Justice Varma chose to resign. His exit effectively halts the impeachment process but does not necessarily close the matter entirely.
Going forward, the case is likely to remain significant in shaping discussions around judicial transparency and accountability. While resignation prevents further parliamentary action for removal, it may still leave room for continued scrutiny, institutional review, or potential legal consequences depending on the findings of ongoing or future inquiries.
