For Justice Yashwant Varma, the coming months will define the legacy of a career built over decades. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s decision to constitute a three-member inquiry committee to investigate allegations against him in the “cash-at-home” controversy has kickstarted the process of judicial impeachment.
Known for his sharp legal mind and crisp orders, Varma now finds himself in a different arena, where he is the accused and the Constitution is the judge. Allegations involving burnt currency notes and whispers of impropriety have pushed him into the harsh glare of public scrutiny. What follows will be a constitutional trial in slow motion. And for Varma, every word, every move, will matter.
Friends say he was in Allahabad until last month, but has now returned to Delhi as the impeachment process gathers pace. Yes, it is a moment of intense personal and professional strain. For his family, the city’s familiar streets carry a new air of unease, with every phone call and knock at the door a reminder of the storm ahead. For Varma, Delhi is no longer just his workplace—it is the battleground for his career and reputation.
When Birla named the inquiry panel, one detail quietly stood out—all three members have roots in Karnataka. Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court hails from Karnataka and had served as chief justice of the Gujarat High Court before his elevation. Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, the former chief justice of the Madras High Court, built much of his early legal career in the Karnataka bar before moving to Mumbai. Senior advocate B.V. Acharya, 91, is a towering figure in Karnataka’s legal fraternity. He is known for his fearless prosecution in J. Jayalalithaa’s disproportionate assets case.
The geographic convergence may be deliberate. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, the speaker can choose members perceived as independent of the judge’s professional circles, reducing the risk of conflict of interest. By selecting jurists with little direct institutional overlap with Varma’s Delhi-Allahabad career, the panel’s credibility is strengthened.
The panel’s mandate is simple but momentous—decide whether Varma has committed “proved misbehaviour” warranting removal. Once notified, it has quasi-judicial powers—to summon witnesses, call for documents, frame charges and hold hearings where Varma can be represented by.
Former Lok Sabha secretary-general P.D.T. Achary has raised a procedural objection. “If the motion was moved simultaneously in both houses, the speaker cannot proceed alone without the Rajya Sabha chairman acting in parallel,” he said. Achary said such unilateral action runs contrary to the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act and could be challenged in the Supreme Court on grounds of procedural illegality.
The committee may ask Varma about the incident in detail and include varied questions about how the currency notes were brought to his knowledge or possession. The gamut of questions could also be wider; like, was Varma aware of any connection between the litigants and the currency notes? Did he direct or allow any concealment or destruction?
Varma’s tenures in both the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts could come under scrutiny, as could his asset and income disclosures, lifestyle, and any interactions with witnesses or court staff after the incident. Varma’s options are few. He can challenge the procedure in court—though precedent shows courts are reluctant to interfere in parliamentary impeachment. He can resign before the report is out—preserving pension and privileges and ending the process. Or, appear before the committee—risky, but potentially career-saving, if cleared.
The Varma case sits at the uneasy intersection of public trust and institutional self-preservation. For judicial independence, the fear is that impeachment could be weaponised politically. For accountability, the danger is the opposite—that serious misconduct hides behind constitutional complexity.
THE WEEK spoke to several former judges of the Supreme Court who said the judiciary has created a high threshold to protect judges from political vendetta. “But when you have a real case, it becomes a near-impossible mountain to climb,” said a judge.
Even now, no FIR or criminal case has been filed against Varma. The Supreme Court’s in-house committee found misconduct but did not conclude it amounted to impeachable “proved misbehaviour” under Article 124(4). Not every lapse meets that constitutional standard.
Historically, no Indian judge has been removed by Parliament. V. Ramaswami (1993) and Soumitra Sen (2011) faced adverse committee reports, but political divisions saved them. The impeachment threshold is high—a safeguard against political vendetta but also a shield that can protect misconduct.
If Varma decides to face the motion in Parliament, he will need a strong legal team—skilled and proficient in constitutional law and well-versed in navigating political circles. The defence strategy would likely focus on discrediting the in-house report’s findings, questioning the chain of custody for the burnt cash, and highlighting any procedural lapses in evidence gathering.
The Varma saga is a stress test for India’s constitutional design. Yet, accountability cannot be sacrificed at the altar of independence. This is a test for three institutions—the courts’ capacity to police themselves without opaque secrecy, Parliament’s willingness and capacity to carry out a constitutionally rigorous inquiry, and the executive’s role in enabling or resisting criminal processes where appropriate.
The Varma case will not be resolved on law alone; it will be resolved at the intersection of law, politics and public expectations. If the aim is to restore trust, the system should strive for two things at once—procedural fairness to the accused judge, and transparent and timely explanations for the public. Anything less risks creating the impression that the higher judiciary is either unaccountable or vulnerable to selective scrutiny—neither of which is healthy for a democracy grounded in the rule of law.
Varma now stands at a rare and perilous crossroads. The path of resignation offers a softer legacy. The path of impeachment offers a chance, albeit slim, at vindication, but it carries the near-certain risk of constitutional disgrace. His decision will shape not only his personal fate but also the credibility of India’s mechanisms for holding its higher judiciary to account.
Ultimately, Varma’s case is a referendum on the judiciary’s ability to enforce regulations without eroding its independence. The choices made in the coming weeks by Varma, by Parliament, and by the judiciary will echo far beyond one man’s fate. They will signal whether India’s courts remain worthy of public trust, or whether that trust is a currency now on the verge of being burnt.
THE PROCESS EXPLAINED
Motion admitted in Lok Sabha: Speaker forms committee
Committee frames charges: sends notice to judge
Judge submits written defence
Oral hearings
Committee submits reports to Speaker
If charges proved, motion taken in both houses. Removal requires 2/3 majority in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha