A 3-member committee’s report on allegations towards former excessive court docket decide justice Yashwant Varma, tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, discovered him responsible and mentioned the fees of possession of unexplained money, disturbing proof and evading explanations had been “confirmed”.
The tabling of the report as soon as once more pivots focus to a constitutional puzzle: If justice Varma is not a decide, can Parliament take into account eradicating him via impeachment? And if he continues to carry judicial workplace — a prerequisite for impeachment — how can that constitutional place coexist along with his restored eligibility to renew personal authorized observe and the give up of nearly each privilege and accountability hooked up to judicial workplace?
These twin questions lie on the coronary heart of this paradox.
The inquiry towards justice Varma traces its origins to allegations of unaccounted money being found at his official residence in Lutyens’ Delhi in March 2025, when he was serving as a decide of the Delhi excessive court docket.
Whereas the decide persistently denied any information or possession of the cash, describing the allegations as a conspiracy to malign him and insisting that neither he nor any member of his household had positioned money on the web site, an in-house inquiry panel of the Supreme Court docket discovered his clarification unsatisfactory, prompting then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to suggest motion to the chief.
This led to the initiation of removing proceedings in Parliament, with notices being moved in each Homes in July 2025. Whereas the Lok Sabha admitted the movement and proceeded to represent an inquiry committee, the Rajya Sabha declined to confess a parallel movement, citing procedural infirmities. Justice Varma, nevertheless, resigned in April this yr whereas the inquiry was underway.
Additionally learn: Justice Varma probe: ‘Charge proved’ with no finding of ownership
The paradox
The tabling of the report has reopened a authorized debate that goes nicely past the destiny of 1 decide. At stake is the constitutional structure governing judicial resignations, parliamentary removing proceedings, and the extent to which one constitutional course of can survive after one other has apparently run its course.
Not like earlier impeachment proceedings towards judges, Parliament now finds itself navigating uncharted constitutional terrain.
On one aspect is a 1978 Structure bench judgment of the Supreme Court docket that treats the resignation of a excessive court docket decide as a unilateral constitutional act that doesn’t require acceptance by any authority and turns into efficient from the date chosen by the decide himself. On the opposite is the federal government’s obvious resolution to proceed with the parliamentary course of, relying, amongst different issues, on the truth that the decide’s resignation has not but been formally acted upon by the chief.
All indicators level to an exit
But, past the persevering with look of his identify on the roster of the Allahabad excessive court docket, the place he was transferred following the controversy, nearly each goal indicator factors in the other way.
Justice Varma has not carried out any perform as a decide since his resignation. He has surrendered the official facilities, automobiles, and different services obtainable to a sitting excessive court docket decide.
Inside correspondence inside the Allahabad excessive court docket registry, accessed by Hindustan Occasions, reveals that he has additionally been issued the mandatory no-objection certificates following the relinquishment of official property and advantages hooked up to judicial workplace.
Considerably, justice Varma has revived his enrolment with the Bar Council, thereby turning into eligible underneath the prevailing regulatory framework to renew personal authorized observe at any time — a place that seems basically inconsistent with concurrently persevering with to carry constitutional workplace as a sitting excessive court docket decide.
On the similar time, his wage has ceased. His pension has not commenced. His Common Provident Fund and Group Insurance coverage advantages stay undisbursed, reflecting an administrative place that’s itself caught in a quandary.
The ensuing image presents the paradox. For all sensible and institutional functions, the decide seems to have demitted workplace. But Parliament is seemingly getting ready to think about whether or not the very workplace he seems to have vacated must be taken away via the extraordinary technique of removing.
The constitutional backdrop solely sharpens that contradiction.
Article 217 of the Structure permits a excessive court docket decide to resign “by writing underneath his hand addressed to the President”. Not like authorities servants, whose resignations ordinarily turn into efficient upon acceptance by the competent authority, the Structure doesn’t ponder acceptance of a excessive court docket decide’s resignation.
Additionally learn: ‘For cheap publicity’: SC junks plea for criminal probe against Justice Varma
What the Structure bench mentioned
That distinction was authoritatively defined by a five-judge Structure bench of the Supreme Court docket in Union of India Vs Gopal Chandra Misra (1978), a judgment that has occupied centre stage in discussions surrounding justice Varma’s resignation.
The five-judge bench held {that a} excessive court docket decide enjoys a “unilateral constitutional proper” to resign and that unusual rules governing service resignations don’t have any utility as a result of a decide just isn’t an worker of the chief however a constitutional functionary. The bulk judgment particularly noticed that the place a decide resigns with rapid impact, the constitutional relationship is severed from the date chosen by the decide himself.
Acceptance by the President just isn’t a constitutional requirement.
The judgment distinguished constitutional workplace from unusual public employment, emphasising that the President performs a constitutional perform in appointing judges and isn’t an employer within the standard sense.
The choice arose within the context of a decide looking for to withdraw a potential resignation earlier than it turned efficient. The Structure bench held that such a potential resignation stays “inoperative” or “mute” till the date specified by the decide arrives, and may due to this fact be withdrawn earlier than that date. However as soon as that chosen date is reached, the resignation operates routinely as a result of the decide has, by his personal constitutional act, severed the hyperlink with workplace.
That constitutional formulation has assumed renewed significance as a result of justice Varma’s resignation letter expressly acknowledged that it was being tendered “with rapid impact”.
The constitutional query that follows is easy, although its reply will not be.
Can a removing course of survive resignation?
If the resignation turned efficient instantly underneath Article 217, can the mechanism established underneath Articles 124(4), 217(1)(b) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which exists solely to determine on the removing of a sitting decide, proceed to function after the decide has already ceased to carry workplace?
The scheme of the Judges (Inquiry) Act seems directed completely in the direction of one constitutional consequence: removing.
The statute creates an elaborate fact-finding mechanism to find out whether or not Parliament ought to suggest removing of a decide on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. It doesn’t ponder disciplinary penalties in need of removing, nor does it expressly present for continuation of proceedings after the constitutional workplace itself has ceased to exist.
In response to a number of judicial precedents, the constitutional expression “removing” essentially presupposes the continued existence of the workplace sought to be vacated. As soon as resignation takes impact, the very material of removing disappears as a result of Parliament can’t take away an individual from an workplace he not occupies.
Precedents inform a distinct story
When justice PD Dinakaran resigned in 2011 whereas impeachment proceedings had been pending, the inquiry committee constituted underneath the Judges (Inquiry) Act was dissolved and no inquiry report was finally positioned earlier than Parliament.
Equally, proceedings towards justice Soumitra Sen successfully got here to an finish after his resignation as a decide of the Calcutta excessive court docket, however that the Rajya Sabha had already adopted the movement recommending his removing.
Justice Varma’s case, nevertheless, presents an essential procedural distinction.
Not like the sooner instances, the inquiry committee continued with its work even after the resignation and submitted its report — discovering all three articles of cost towards justice Varma proved — to the Lok Sabha Speaker. Whether or not Parliament, having now tabled that report, proceeds additional with removing proceedings, may decide the constitutional significance.
Some authorities officers have described the problem as a authorized “gray space”, pointing to the truth that the resignation has not but been formally processed.
But that place itself raises recent constitutional questions.
If the absence of government motion is adequate to postpone the authorized penalties of resignation, does that sit comfortably with the Structure Bench’s conclusion that resignation underneath Article 217 is a unilateral constitutional act not dependent upon presidential acceptance?
Equally, if justice Varma continues to carry constitutional workplace regardless of his resignation, how does that sq. with the restoration of his enrolment as an advocate, which now allows him underneath the relevant regulatory framework to renew personal authorized observe at any time — a place ordinarily incompatible with concurrently serving as a sitting excessive court docket decide?
The tabling of the report due to this fact does greater than revive one inquiry. It has reopened unresolved questions concerning the constitutional that means of resignation itself, the bounds of parliamentary removing powers, and the purpose at which a decide really ceases to occupy judicial workplace.
Ought to the Home determine to maneuver past having tabled the report and try and proceed with removing regardless of justice Varma’s resignation, India may witness the primary authoritative judicial examination of whether or not Parliament’s impeachment jurisdiction survives the constitutional exit of the decide it seeks to take away.
Till then, the tabling of a report leaves the nation confronting an uncommon constitutional spectacle — a decide who has relinquished his workplace in observe, however whose authorized standing stays the topic of some of the consequential constitutional debates lately.
(The evaluation was first reported by HT in July 2026. It has been up to date with newest developments)
