The Case for the Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma

 It is a troubling anomaly that, more than a month after tendering his resignation on April 9, 2026, Justice Yashwant Varma remains a judge of the Allahabad High Court on paper. While his resignation awaits formal acceptance by the President, the shadows of the March 2025 discovery—unaccounted, half-burnt currency found at his residence—continue to loom over the integrity of the higher judiciary.

The Investigative Trail

The evidence against Justice Varma is substantial. Following a fire at his official residence, an In-house Enquiry Committee found "strong evidence" that the judge exercised "tacit or active control" over the storeroom where the cash was discovered. When the judge refused to resign voluntarily in May 2025, the matter escalated to Parliament. On August 12, 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted an impeachment motion backed by over 140 MPs and constituted a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Justice Varma’s response followed a familiar script of procedural delay. He challenged the inquiry in the Supreme Court, claiming the Speaker's unilateral formation of the committee was invalid. In January 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed his petition, ruling that safeguards for judges cannot be allowed to paralyse the removal process. Having exhausted his legal shields, the judge resigned just as the inquiry panel was set to conclude its probe.

The Constitutional Lacuna

Legally, this situation tests the limits of Article 217(1). While the 1978 Gopal Chandra Misra precedent suggests a resignation is typically final upon receipt, the spirit of the law was never intended to provide a sanctuary for "proved misbehaviour."

By requesting "immediate effect," Justice Varma is not merely seeking retirement; he is seeking to render the parliamentary process infructuous. This strategy has been used before to evade the ultimate constitutional censure:

• Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion but before the Lok Sabha could vote.
• Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011) resigned before proceedings reached their logical end.

The Need for a Final Verdict

Allowing a resignation to serve as a "get-out-of-jail-free" card sets a dangerous precedent. It allows a judge to avoid the loss of pension and retirement benefits that a formal impeachment would entail, effectively rewarding a strategic exit.

Accountability is not just about removal; it is about transparency. The public has a right to know the origin of the "half-burnt" cash and the extent of the alleged corruption. To let Justice Varma "wriggle out" via a resignation letter is an admission of systemic helplessness.

For the sake of public trust, the President should consider delaying acceptance of the resignation until the Judges Inquiry Committee submits its findings. Impeachment proceedings must reach their logical conclusion to ensure that the writing on the wall is not an invitation to flee, but a mandate for justice.