The Inquiry Must Not Die with the Tenure

Source: The Hindu

Introduction 

The resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma has revived a question Indian law has not answered satisfactorily in the past 14 years. When a judge quits in the shadow of parliamentary removal, does the statutory inquiry against him fall with him? The question has arisen before. When Justice P.D. Dinakaran resigned in July 2011, the committee was wound up, despite its sittings after his resignation. Justice Soumitra Sen's case went further — his inquiry committee returned adverse findings, the Rajya Sabha voted to remove him in August 2011, and he resigned on the eve of the Lok Sabha vote, whereupon the motion was dropped as infructuous. Justice Varma has now resigned as his committee nears conclusion. The first two episodes produced no reform. The third is still in progress.

Background: Who is Justice Yashwant Varma? 

Profile: 

• Judge of the Allahabad High Court (parent court); previously elevated to Delhi High Court in October 2021. 
• Was due to retire in 2031. 

The Cash Recovery Incident (March 2025): 

• On March 14, 2025, a fire broke out at his official Delhi residence; Delhi Fire Service personnel discovered a large stash of unaccounted cash — estimated at roughly ₹15 crore in burnt and partially burnt ₹500 notes — in a storeroom. 
• At the time, Justice Varma and his wife were travelling in Madhya Pradesh; only his daughter and elderly mother were at home. 
• Footage of burning currency notes surfaced publicly, intensifying scrutiny. 
• Justice Varma consistently maintained the cash was not his and the site of the fire was not part of his actual residence. 

The In-House Committee (March–May 2025): 

• Then CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member panel on March 22, 2025 — comprising CJ Sheel Nagu (P&H HC), CJ G.S. Sandhawalia (HP HC), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka HC). 
• The committee found that the cash was in a storeroom under the "covert or active control" of Justice Varma and his family. 
• It concluded the misconduct was serious enough to warrant initiation of removal proceedings. 

Transfer and Refusal to Resign: 

• CJI Khanna asked Justice Varma to resign or face removal; he refused. 
• The report was forwarded to the President and Prime Minister. 
• Justice Varma was transferred back to the Allahabad High Court and his judicial work was withdrawn. 

Parliamentary Proceedings (August 2025 onwards): 

• Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted a three-member Judges Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 
• Over 100 Lok Sabha members signed a notice of motion seeking an address to the President for his removal. 
• Justice Varma challenged the proceedings in the Supreme Court; a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma found no infirmity in the Speaker's decision and dismissed the plea. 

Resignation (April 2026): 

• Justice Varma wrote to President Draupadi Murmu on April 9, 2026, tendering his resignation with immediate effect — expressing "deep anguish" without stating reasons. 
• He became the second judge in Indian history to resign while a Judges Inquiry Committee had yet to conclude its findings.

Core Legal Question: Does the Inquiry Survive Resignation? 

• The constitutional and statutory framework for removing a judge operates on two tracks under Article 124(5) of the Constitution. 
• The first track is investigative — an inquiry committee examines and returns findings of fact and guilt. 
• The second track is political — upon an adverse finding, an address is moved in Parliament, requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses for removal. 
• The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 govern the investigative stage. Sections 3 and 4 make the inquiry's work independent of any parliamentary decision. 
• The Supreme Court, in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991), held the investigative stage to be judicial in character. In Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India (1992), the Court held that once the inquiry committee's report reaches the Speaker, the process becomes statutory and open to judicial review.

Two Precedents: What Happened Before 

Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011): 

• When Justice Dinakaran resigned in July 2011, the committee examining charges against him was wound up. 
• Vice-President Hamid Ansari wound up the committee in September 2011, relying on the view of jurist G. Mohan Gopal — a member of that committee. 
• Ansari gave no public reasoning. The basis emerged only when the Rajya Sabha Secretariat replied to an RTI petition, which stated the 1968 Act provided no mechanism for dissolving a duly constituted committee. 
• The decision was said to be taken "on the basis of law and precedents" — citing two American cases. 

Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): 

• His inquiry committee returned adverse findings. 
• The Rajya Sabha voted for removal in August 2011. 
• He resigned on the eve of the Lok Sabha vote, and the motion was dropped as infructuous. 

Statutory Framework at a Glance 

Conclusion 

The resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma forces Indian constitutional law to answer a question it has twice evaded — and once answered wrongly by silence. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 provides no mechanism for dissolving a duly constituted committee, and its rules expressly anticipate a non-cooperating respondent. The investigative stage, held judicial in character by the Supreme Court, cannot logically be made to depend on a judge's voluntary continuance in office. If it does, the removal framework the Constitution built with deliberate difficulty becomes a procedure the subject can abort at will. The Speaker's decision will determine whether that framework retains meaning — and whether judicial accountability in India is a promise or a procedural formality.