New Delhi: In a significant development shaking the Indian judiciary, a bipartisan group of 145 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members have submitted motions to remove High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma from office. The notices, filed under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Indian Constitution, were presented to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on July 21, 2025, marking a rare and serious attempt to impeach a sitting judge. The move follows allegations of misconduct stemming from the discovery of burnt currency notes at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi on March 14, 2025.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy erupted when a fire at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi on March 14, 2025, led to the discovery of charred and half-burnt Rs 500 currency notes. The incident sent shockwaves through judicial and political circles, raising questions about potential corruption within the judiciary. A Supreme Court-appointed three-member inquiry panel, constituted by then Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna, investigated the matter and concluded that the allegations were serious enough to warrant impeachment proceedings. The panel found that Justice Varma and his family had active control over the storeroom where the burnt currency was discovered, deeming the misconduct grave enough to justify his removal.
Following the incident, Justice Varma’s responsibilities at the Delhi High Court were revoked, and he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. However, the findings of the inquiry panel prompted parliamentarians to initiate formal proceedings to remove him from office. Justice Varma has denied any wrongdoing and has challenged the panel’s findings in a writ petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the inquiry committee acted in a “pre-determined manner” and violated his rights by denying him a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Constitutional Provisions for Removal of Judges
The process to remove a judge in India is governed by Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution, along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. These provisions outline the grounds and procedures for the removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges. According to Article 124(4), a judge of the Supreme Court can be removed on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity. Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to regulate the procedure for presenting an address and investigating allegations of misbehavior or incapacity, as detailed in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Article 217(1)(b) extends the same removal process to High Court judges, stating that they may be removed by the President in the manner provided under Article 124(4). Article 218 ensures that the provisions of Article 124(4) and (5) apply to High Court judges as well.
The removal process, often referred to as impeachment (though the term does not appear in the Constitution), is rigorous and involves multiple steps:
- Initiation: A removal motion must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members and submitted to the Speaker or Chairman.
- Committee Formation and Investigation: If the motion is admitted, a three-member committee, comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist, is constituted to investigate the charges.
- Parliamentary Approval: If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehavior or incapacity, the motion is considered by the originating House. It must be passed with a special majority (a majority of the total membership of the House and at least two-thirds of the members present and voting). The motion is then sent to the second House, which must also pass it with a special majority.
- Presidential Order: After passage in both Houses, an address is presented to the President in the same session, who then issues the order for the judge’s removal.
Details of the Impeachment Motion
On July 21, 2025, the impeachment process against Justice Varma was formally set in motion. In the Lok Sabha, a memorandum signed by 152 members, including prominent figures such as Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, BJP leaders Ravi Shankar Prasad and Anurag Thakur, Nationalist Congress Party (SP) member Supriya Sule, Congress leaders K.C. Venugopal and K. Suresh, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader T.R. Baalu, Revolutionary Socialist Party member N.K. Premachandran, and Indian Union Muslim League member E.T. Mohammed Basheer, was submitted to Speaker Om Birla. Notably, the motion received bipartisan support, with lawmakers from the BJP, Congress, TDP, JD(U), JD(S), Jan Sena Party, AGP, SS (Shinde), LJSP, and CPM endorsing the move. However, no members from the Trinamool Congress or Samajwadi Party signed the notice.
In the Rajya Sabha, a parallel notice signed by 63 Opposition members was submitted to Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar. The Rajya Sabha Chairman confirmed that the motion met the numerical requirement of 50 signatures and announced that the Secretary-General would take the necessary steps to advance the process. Dhankhar also noted that, as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, if motions are submitted in both Houses on the same day, a joint committee will be constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman to investigate the charges. However, the committee will only be formed once the motion is admitted in both Houses.
Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal confirmed that 152 Lok Sabha members had submitted a similar notice to the Speaker, reinforcing the bipartisan nature of the effort. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had earlier stated on July 20, 2025, that over 100 lawmakers had endorsed the impeachment motion, adding that all political parties were “on board” with the move.
Inquiry Committee and Next Steps
According to sources, the Lok Sabha Speaker is likely to announce the formation of a three-member inquiry committee on July 22, 2025. The committee, mandated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, will consist of a senior Supreme Court judge, a sitting Chief Justice of a High Court, and a prominent jurist. The committee is expected to complete its investigation and submit a report within three months. The report will be tabled in Parliament, followed by discussions and voting in both Houses on the motion to remove Justice Varma.
The inquiry will focus on the allegations of misconduct related to the discovery of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma’s residence. The Supreme Court-appointed panel’s earlier findings, which indicted Justice Varma, will likely serve as a key reference point. However, Justice Varma’s ongoing legal challenge in the Supreme Court, where he has criticized the in-house committee’s process, may complicate the proceedings.
Political and Judicial Implications
The impeachment motion has sparked widespread debate about judicial integrity and accountability. Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, in a post on X, highlighted the Opposition’s role in pushing for Justice Varma’s removal, noting that 63 Rajya Sabha MPs from various Opposition parties had submitted the notice. He also referenced a previous motion for the removal of another Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Shekhar Yadav, submitted on December 13, 2024. Dhankhar addressed this earlier motion, revealing a procedural issue where one member’s signature appeared twice, reducing the valid signatures to 54. The verification process for that motion is ongoing.
The cash scandal has also intensified tensions between the judiciary and the government. Some BJP members have accused the Supreme Court of overreach, while Justice Varma’s petition argues that the in-house inquiry usurped Parliament’s authority and eroded judicial independence. Additionally, a plea in the Supreme Court has criticized the Centre and Delhi Police for failing to register an FIR in the Justice Varma incident, further highlighting the controversy’s complexity.
Broader Context and Public Reaction
The discovery of burnt currency notes at a judge’s residence has raised serious concerns about corruption in the judiciary, prompting calls for greater transparency and accountability. The bipartisan support for the impeachment motion reflects a rare consensus among political parties on the need to address such allegations decisively. Congress MP K Suresh confirmed that the party provided 40 signatures for the motion and collaborated with other INDIA bloc parties to meet the required tally.
The case has also drawn comparisons to other judicial controversies, with the public and media closely watching the proceedings. The outcome of the impeachment process could set a significant precedent for how allegations of judicial misconduct are handled in India.
Conclusion
The impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma represents a critical moment for India’s judiciary and its democratic institutions. With 145 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members backing the move, the process underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the commitment to upholding judicial integrity. As the inquiry committee prepares to investigate, and with Justice Varma’s legal challenge pending in the Supreme Court, the case is poised to have far-reaching implications for the judiciary, Parliament, and public trust in governance. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether the allegations against Justice Varma lead to his removal or spark broader reforms in the judicial system.
Frequently Asked Questions
1.What prompted the impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma?
The impeachment motion was initiated after burnt and half-burnt Rs 500 currency notes were discovered at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi on March 14, 2025, following a fire. A Supreme Court-appointed inquiry panel found the allegations of misconduct serious enough to warrant his removal, leading 145 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha members to submit notices for his impeachment under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Indian Constitution.
2. What is the process for removing a High Court judge in India?
The removal process, governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, involves: (1) A motion signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members submitted to the Speaker or Chairman; (2) If admitted, a three-member committee (a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a jurist) investigates; (3) Both Houses must pass the motion with a special majority; (4) An address is presented to the President, who issues the removal order.
3. Who supported the impeachment motion against Justice Varma?
The motion received bipartisan support, with 152 Lok Sabha members, including BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad and Anurag Thakur, Congress’ Rahul Gandhi, and leaders from TDP, JD(U), CPM, and others, signing the notice. In the Rajya Sabha, 63 Opposition members backed the motion. Notably, Trinamool Congress and Samajwadi Party members did not sign.
4. What are the allegations against Justice Varma, and how has he responded?
Justice Varma is accused of misconduct after unaccounted cash was found at his residence. A Supreme Court panel concluded he had control over the storeroom where the cash was found. Varma has denied wrongdoing and filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, claiming the inquiry committee acted in a “pre-determined manner” and denied him a fair defense.
5. What happens next in the impeachment process?
The Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman will jointly constitute a three-member committee to investigate the allegations, expected to submit a report within three months. If the committee finds Varma guilty, both Houses will debate and vote on the motion. If passed with a special majority, an address will be presented to the President for his removal.
