Justice Yashwant Varma has resigned from the Allahabad High Court, becoming the third sitting judge in India’s history to step down amid imminent impeachment proceedings. His exit abruptly halts an accountability process that gained momentum in Parliament recently.
Justice Yashwant Varma resigned from the Allahabad High Court, becoming only the third serving judge in India’s history to step down amid looming impeachment proceedings.
His decision brings an abrupt stop to a seldom-used accountability process that had gathered pace in Parliament, but had not yet reached a final vote.
Impeachment is India’s most far-reaching constitutional tool for holding members of the judiciary accountable, yet it is rarely carried through to completion. The closest precedent is the case of Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court.
Accused of misappropriating funds, Justice Sen was found guilty of misconduct by an inquiry committee. In 2011, the Rajya Sabha passed a motion calling for his removal with broad support. However, before the Lok Sabha could consider the motion, he resigned, causing the impeachment process to end without a conclusion, while he continued to receive post-retirement benefits.
A comparable outcome followed in the case of PD Dinakaran of the Sikkim High Court. Proceedings began in 2011 on allegations of judicial misconduct and advanced to the inquiry committee stage. Before Parliament could proceed further, Justice Dinakaran resigned, stating he had lost faith in the inquiry process. The impeachment proceedings then effectively ended on their own, and no criminal case was pursued.
Justice Varma’s resignation now adds to a small set of situations where impeachment efforts progressed substantially but did not culminate in a final parliamentary determination.
A timeline of the events
Justice Varma’s resignation follows a major controversy involving alleged cash recovery after a fire at his Delhi residence. The incident was reported in March of the previous year, and authorities later found stacks of cash at the home.
On March 22, the then Chief Justice, Sanjiv Khanna, took cognizance of the matter and constituted a three-member panel to investigate the allegations.
Justice Varma denied the allegations, maintaining that no cash had been recovered from his home. He also said none of his family members was involved in moving anything from the gutted storeroom.
On March 24, the Supreme Court transferred Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court, issuing directions to the Chief Justice there to ensure he was not assigned any judicial responsibilities.
On May 3, the top-court panel concluded that Justice Varma was guilty of misconduct and recommended his removal. As Justice Varma did not agree to step down, the CJI wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi requesting his impeachment.
Earlier, On July 3, 2025, the government began collecting signatures for a motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal, with major political parties indicating support.
In August 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted a three-member panel under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to examine the allegations. The committee included Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court, Justice Maninder Mohan, Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, and senior advocate B V Acharaya.
Justice Varma challenged the legal validity of the panel before the Supreme Court. However, the apex court dismissed his plea and directed the parliamentary committee to continue the inquiry.
It is pertinent to note that no judge has been successfully impeached in India so far.
The committee was expected to submit its report during the upcoming monsoon session.
ALSO READ:
In August 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted a Judges Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Justice Varma later approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging parts of the procedure, but the court refused to interfere in January, clearing the way for the inquiry to continue.
The committee started recording evidence earlier this year.
On April 9, Justice Varma submitted his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu, stating that he was stepping down with “deep anguish” and did not wish to burden the office with his reasons. With the resignation, the impeachment track has effectively ended, since impeachment proceedings cease to serve their constitutional purpose once the judge has left office.
That said, resignation does not automatically settle everything: in the absence of the protections that come with judicial office, a criminal investigation could still be pursued, though no specific action of that kind has been publicly outlined.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
