The move follows the findings of a three-member judicial panel that found merit in the allegations, after which the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, recommended Justice Varma’s impeachment.
New Delhi: The Central Government is likely to bring an impeachment motion in Parliament against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma during the upcoming Monsoon Session, after a serious allegation emerged involving a large amount of burnt cash found at his official residence in New Delhi earlier this year.
According to a report, a probe committee appointed by the Supreme Court has found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct. This committee was formed following the discovery of the cash in March. The report said the government might go ahead with the impeachment if Justice Varma does not resign.
As a senior government source was quoted saying: “A final decision on the matter will be taken soon. It is difficult to ignore such a visible scandal.”
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had written a formal letter to both the President of India and the Prime Minister, recommending that Justice Varma be impeached. This recommendation came after the in-house inquiry panel, formed by the apex court, found Justice Varma at fault. However, the findings of this report were not made public.
Justice Yashwant Varma, a High Court judge, has refused to resign even after an internal committee of senior judges found him guilty in an inquiry related to the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi.
This serious incident has now moved to the next stage, where the Central Government and Parliament may start the process to remove him from his post.
Sources said that after receiving the report from the three-judge committee, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had asked Justice Varma to resign voluntarily.
He reportedly warned that if Justice Varma did not step down, impeachment proceedings would be started.
“However, since Justice Varma declined to quit the judgeship, CJI Khanna has now forwarded the report and the judge’s response on it, to the President of India and the Prime Minister for removal of the judge.”
As per the in-house procedure followed by the judiciary, if a judge does not resign even after the inquiry committee gives an adverse report, then the CJI is supposed to inform the President and Prime Minister.
“This is per the in-house procedure under which the CJI is required to report the matter to the President and Prime Minister for removal of the judge who refuses to resign even after adverse findings of the inquiry panel.”
This means that now the responsibility to take action lies with the government and Parliament.
“This would mean that the ball is now in the court of the government and the parliament and they can initiate impeachment of the judge.”
The committee that investigated the case included Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman.
An impeachment motion against a sitting High Court judge is a rare and serious action. Such a motion can be introduced in either of the two Houses of Parliament. However, the Constitution sets a high bar for approval:
- In the Rajya Sabha, the motion must have the support of at least 50 Members of Parliament (MPs).
- In the Lok Sabha, the motion must be signed by at least 100 MPs.
Once the motion is accepted and passed by a two-thirds majority in the respective House, the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (Rajya Sabha) writes to the Chief Justice of India. The CJI then nominates a sitting Supreme Court judge and a Chief Justice of a High Court to form a probe committee.
Additionally, the Central Government nominates an “eminent jurist” to complete the three-member inquiry panel. This panel investigates the allegations mentioned in the motion.
The government will be seeking wider support from all political parties to make sure the impeachment motion passes smoothly. The final draft of the motion will include findings from the three-member probe committee and will be shared with opposition parties for consultation.
Background
At the time when the cash was found, Justice Yashwant Varma was serving as a judge in the Delhi High Court. Following the incident, he was transferred back (repatriated) to the Allahabad High Court.
The government source stressed the seriousness of the issue, quoting: “It is difficult to ignore such a visible scandal.”
Justice Varma, meanwhile, continues to maintain his innocence and denies any link to the recovered money.
