India’s High Court judge impeachment begins: Yashwant Varma faces action over burnt cash scandal

Dubai: The impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma — former Delhi High Court judge — officially began Monday.

A group of 145 Members of Parliament (MPs), cutting across party lines, submitted a memorandum to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla calling for his removal, Indian media reports said.

Among the signatories are prominent names such as Rahul Gandhi (Congress), Anurag Thakur (BJP), and Supriya Sule (Nationalist Congress Party). MPs from the ruling BJP, its allies (like the Telugu Desam Party and Janata Dal factions), and opposition parties, including the Congress and CPI(M), signed the motion, NDTV reported.

• How judge impeachment works in India?

• While the term "impeachment" is not explicitly used in the Indian Constitution, the removal process for High Court and Supreme Court judges is outlined in Articles 124, 217, and 218.

• The process begins when at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs sign a motion. Once submitted, the Speaker or Chair reviews the materials before proceeding further under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.

• If an impeachment motion is admitted in Parliament, a three-member committee must be formed by the Speaker or Chairman. It includes a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. If both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha admit the motion on the same day, the Speaker and Chairman jointly form the committee.

• The committee frames charges, allows the judge to defend himself, and submits a report. If found guilty, the motion must pass both Houses — with a majority of total members and two-thirds of those present and voting. If approved, the President can order the judge’s removal.

• In this case, if the motion against Justice Yashwant Varma is admitted, Speaker Om Birla or Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar will initiate the process. If both Houses pass it and the committee finds him guilty, President Droupadi Murmu can formally remove him.

• No Indian judge has ever been impeached.
  Justice V. Ramaswami was the first to face impeachment in 1991 but escaped removal after the ruling party abstained. Justice PD Dinakaran and Justice Soumitra Sen resigned before proceedings concluded.

According to a PTI report 63 Rajya Sabha MPs were also among the signatories. 

Earlier, Congress MP K Suresh said that the party extended its full support to the impeachment move against Varma, joining hands with the INDIA bloc parties.

"The INDIA bloc parties are also supporting this and are also signing the letters to the Speaker," Congress MP K Suresh told ANI in the national capital after attending an all party meeting convened by the government ahead of Parliament Monsoon session.

Suresh said that the Congress had already provided 40 signatures to back the motion and was working with other opposition members to complete the required tally.

What prompted the move?

The controversy erupted on March 15 when firefighters responding to a blaze at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence reportedly discovered burnt stacks of ₹500 currency notes. Although Justice Varma has denied any involvement — calling the allegations “preposterous” and claiming a conspiracy — the Supreme Court launched an internal probe.

An in-house committee later submitted a report to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending impeachment. According to the 64-page report, the outhouse where the cash was found was maintained and accessed by the judge’s family.

Justice Varma was subsequently sent back to his parent High Court in Allahabad and stepped down from active duties.

Government confirms push to remove Varma

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju confirmed on Sunday that dozens of MPs, including around 36 from the Congress, had signed the memorandum. The government has made it clear it intends to proceed with the removal process.

Justice Varma challenges report

Justice Varma has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the committee’s findings and questioning its jurisdiction. He argued that he was denied a fair hearing and that the Supreme Court lacks disciplinary authority — or "superintendence" — over High Court judges.