Controversy Engulfs Justice Yashwant Varma
The Indian judiciary finds itself at a crossroads once again, as controversy brews around Justice Yashwant Varma, formerly of the Delhi High Court and currently serving in the Allahabad High Court. The judge came under scrutiny after a fire incident at his Delhi residence led to an alleged cash recovery by fire personnel — an event that has since spiraled into a full-blown judicial and political saga. With the Supreme Court now rejecting his challenge to an internal inquiry, the path seems clear for impeachment proceedings to begin.
Allegations Sparked by Fire Incident
The chain of events was triggered on March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s residence in Delhi. Though he was not home at the time, emergency responders reportedly discovered unexplained cash at the scene, raising serious questions about its origin. The incident prompted the Chief Justice of India to initiate an in-house investigation, comprising a three-judge panel tasked with examining the matter.
In-House Inquiry and Legal Challenge
Following the inquiry, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, then acting in the capacity of Chief Justice of India, recommended impeachment based on the panel’s findings. However, Justice Varma contested the report, arguing through his counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, that he had been denied a fair hearing and was not provided adequate opportunity to defend himself before the committee finalized its conclusions.
Despite these assertions, a Supreme Court bench led by Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih found little merit in the arguments. The court observed that Justice Varma did not challenge the inquiry’s constitutionality at the outset, despite participating in its proceedings.
“You are a constitutional authority,” the bench noted. “If you believed the process was flawed, you should have immediately approached this court rather than waiting for an unfavourable outcome.”
The court’s remarks echoed a broader principle: procedural objections lose weight when raised post-facto, especially when a party willingly takes part in the process being contested.
Parliament Steps In: Impeachment Motion Looms
With the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere, the matter now moves to the legislative arena. Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju announced that a motion for Justice Varma’s removal will be introduced in the Lok Sabha, in accordance with constitutional protocols.
Rijiju underscored that such a decision cannot rest solely with the executive. “This is not just the government’s initiative; it is the collective duty of Parliament,” he said, adding that all political parties had agreed to move jointly on the matter.
According to procedure, any impeachment motion must first be passed by each House of Parliament, requiring a two-thirds majority. Such steps have historically been rare in India’s judicial system — with Justice Soumitra Sen and Justice P.D. Dinakaran being previous high-profile examples of judges facing similar proceedings.
Previous Cases Set the Precedent
India’s judiciary has seen very few impeachment motions reach this stage. Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court faced removal over misappropriation of funds, with the Rajya Sabha passing the motion, although he resigned before it could be completed. Likewise, Justice Dinakaran of the Sikkim High Court stepped down before Parliament could act on corruption charges.
In both instances, the in-house inquiry mechanism proved to be an effective internal check — a precedent that continues with the Varma case.
A Crisis and an Opportunity
The case of Justice Yashwant Varma is both a test of judicial accountability and a reminder of systemic vulnerabilities. While the in-house inquiry system has shown its ability to investigate serious allegations quietly and effectively, it also highlights the need for more transparent procedures and timely redressal mechanisms.
To prevent such crises in the future, India’s judiciary must:
· Standardize internal inquiry protocols, ensuring due process and natural justice.
· Strengthen ethics oversight bodies at both High Court and Supreme Court levels.
· Promote greater transparency in judge appointments and monitoring through judicial reform.
In the end, the Justice Varma saga is more than a personal controversy — it is a call for deep introspection within India’s legal ecosystem. Only through consistent reform and unified political will can public confidence in the judiciary be preserved.
(With agency inputs)
