In a significant move by Parliament, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has initiated proceedings against High Court Judge Yashwant Varma, who is under scrutiny following the recovery of large amounts of cash—some of it burned—from his official residence in Delhi earlier this year. A three-member committee has been set up to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations, marking a rare instance of judicial accountability at this level.

The investigative panel comprises Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Maninder Mohan of the Madras High Court, and senior advocate BV Acharya. The committee has been vested with full authority to summon witnesses, examine evidence, and submit a report to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

This comes after 146 Members of Parliament submitted a motion seeking the impeachment of Justice Varma. Accepting the motion, Speaker Birla declared: “The process of removal of Justice Yashwant Varma should begin. The Parliament is united against corruption. We have accepted the impeachment motion… People have faith in the judiciary.” The motion will remain pending until the committee delivers its findings.

The controversy began on March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s residence in Delhi. Firefighters responding to the blaze discovered stacks of cash—both intact and partially burned—inside the premises. Justice Varma was not present at the time. The following days saw public outrage and growing demands for transparency.

In response, the Supreme Court reassigned Justice Varma from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court and suspended his judicial duties. An in-house inquiry was ordered by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. The panel, after reviewing evidence from 55 witnesses, concluded that the allegations held weight. It found that the judge and his family exercised “active control” over the room where the money was stored and recommended his removal.

Justice Varma contested the findings and moved the Supreme Court under the anonymised title ‘XXX vs Union of India’, arguing that the inquiry panel was biased and deprived him of a fair opportunity to defend himself. His legal challenge raised questions over the jurisdiction and legitimacy of the in-house committee.

On July 30, the Supreme Court dismissed his plea. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih observed that the petition lacked merit, stating the judge’s conduct during the entire episode was “not confidence-inspiring.” The bench further questioned his decision to participate in the inquiry without raising legal objections at the outset.

The apex court also reinforced the role of the Chief Justice of India in maintaining judicial integrity, asserting that the CJI is not merely a “post office” but bears responsibility to act decisively when faced with allegations of misconduct.

According to constitutional provisions under Articles 124(4), 217, and 218, a judge can be removed only after a detailed investigation followed by a two-thirds majority vote in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The committee’s report will first be placed before the House where the motion originated. If passed, it must be approved by the other House, after which the final decision rests with the President of India.

Given that members across political lines have backed the impeachment move, the process is expected to proceed without significant resistance.