Impeachment Proceedings Loom Over Justice Yashwant Varma: A Deep Dive into Legal and Political Ramifications
Kiren Rijiju Initiates Cross-Party Consultations on Impeachment Motion
In a politically significant development, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has reportedly initiated discussions with various political parties to garner support for an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, currently serving at the Allahabad High Court. This follows allegations linked to the discovery of “burnt cash” in a storeroom at his official residence during his tenure as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
In-House Inquiry Committee Report Submitted
The Supreme Court had previously formed a three-member in-house inquiry committee under the leadership of Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice GS Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court). The committee submitted its findings on May 3, 2025, to the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
The inquiry was initiated on March 22, 2025, under the in-house procedure of the Supreme Court to look into allegations of misconduct against Justice Varma. While the findings of the report have not been made public, they have been forwarded to both the Prime Minister and the President of India for further action.
Unusual Transfer to Allahabad High Court
Justice Yashwant Varma was controversially transferred to the Allahabad High Court and took oath on April 5, 2025. The timing and nature of the transfer, shortly before the inquiry report’s submission, have raised questions regarding procedural transparency and judicial accountability.
Political Reactions and Support for Motion
CPI General Secretary D Raja has expressed strong support for the impeachment proceedings, calling for swift action to restore the credibility of the Indian judiciary. He noted that while the issue has remained in public discourse for months, there has been an inexplicable delay in concrete action.
.jpg)
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar Expresses Concern
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar also weighed in on the issue, pointing to the lack of a formal FIR despite the seriousness of the allegations. At a recent public event, he stated:
"We’re confronted with the jarring reality. A judge’s residence in Lutyens’ Delhi had burnt notes. There is no FIR to date... Everyone in the country is thinking whether this will be washed off or fade with time."
He emphasized the need for a transparent investigation and lauded the Supreme Court for beginning to display more openness under Justice Khanna’s tenure. However, he stressed that the matter remains a critical test of democratic accountability.
Constitutional Provisions for Impeachment of High Court Judges
The procedure for the impeachment of High Court judges is governed by Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution. While Article 124(4) pertains directly to the removal of Supreme Court judges, by convention and legal interpretation, the same procedure is applicable to High Court judges.
Steps include:
-
Motion by Parliament: An impeachment motion must be supported by at least 100 MPs (in Lok Sabha) or 50 MPs (in Rajya Sabha).
-
Inquiry Committee Formation: A three-member committee investigates the allegations.
-
Report Submission: If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehavior or incapacity, the motion is debated in Parliament.
-
Parliamentary Approval: A two-thirds majority in both Houses is required to pass the motion.
-
Presidential Assent: Upon approval, the President issues an order for removal.
Historical Background: How Many Judges Have Faced Impeachment?
So far, no judge in India has ever been successfully impeached, although three judges have faced impeachment proceedings:
-
Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) – Faced impeachment over charges of financial misappropriation; the motion failed in Lok Sabha due to lack of political consensus.
-
Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) – Resigned before the impeachment could be completed.
-
Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011) – Also resigned amid serious allegations before proceedings concluded.
Justice Yashwant Varma’s case, therefore, represents a rare instance in Indian legal history and could become a landmark precedent depending on the parliamentary and judicial outcomes.
Conclusion: A Constitutional and Ethical Test for Indian Democracy
The allegations against Justice Varma, combined with the political and legal responses, have ignited a broader debate about judicial accountability in India. As Parliament gears up for its next session, all eyes will be on whether the impeachment motion moves forward — and whether India’s democratic institutions can navigate this unprecedented judicial crisis with transparency and resolve.
Comments
Post a Comment