New Delhi [India], July 21 (ANI): With MPs in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha giving notices for a motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma—who was indicted by an in-house inquiry committee after semi-burnt wads of cash were found at his residence following a fire—a committee is likely to be constituted to probe the allegations, sources said.
The sources indicated that the committee is likely to include a judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice from any of the High Courts, and a distinguished jurist. The notices for removal were given on the first day of the monsoon session of Parliament.
Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday confirmed that he had received a motion signed by MPs for the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma. He noted that the motion meets the numerical requirement for initiating the process to remove a High Court judge.
Dhankhar stated that the process differs under the Judges Inquiry Act depending on whether the motion is presented in one House or both Houses of Parliament. He asked Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, who was present in the House, if a similar motion had been presented in the Lok Sabha.
The Law Minister responded that about 152 Lok Sabha MPs had submitted a similar resolution to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
“I need to inform you that I have received Notice of Motion…to constitute a statutory committee for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma…This has been received by me today. It has been signed by 50 members of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and thus it meets the numerical requirement of signing by MPs for setting in motion a process for removal of a High Court judge,” Dhankhar said.
He continued, “Since the Law Minister is present here and has so indicated that a similar motion has been presented by the requisite number of MPs of Lok Sabha—more than 100—to the Lok Sabha Speaker, the provisions of Section 3(2) will come into effect and the Secretary-General will take necessary steps in this direction.”
Dhankhar referred to rules for constituting the committee: “If the motion referred to in Subsection 1 is admitted, the Speaker, or as the case may be, Chairman, shall keep the motion pending and constitute as soon as may be, for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a judge is prayed for, a committee consisting of three members—of whom one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices and other judges of the Supreme Court, one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts, and one shall be a person who is, in the opinion of the Speaker or, as the case may be, Chairman, a distinguished jurist.”
He added, “It is given that if a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President praying for removal of a judge is signed by not less than 100 members of the House of the People or 50 members of the Council of States, then the Speaker or the Chairman may, after consulting such persons as he thinks fit, and considering such materials as may be available, either admit or refuse to admit the motion.”
Earlier in the day, Lok Sabha MPs submitted a memorandum to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to remove Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash discovery incident. Over 140 Lok Sabha members signed the impeachment motion notice.
MPs from several parties including BJP, Congress, TDP, JD(U), JD(S), Jan Sena Party, AGP, Shiv Sena, LJSP, and CPI(M) are among the signatories. These include Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and party MP KC Venugopal, BJP MPs Ravi Shankar Prasad, Rajiv Pratap Rudy, PP Chaudhary, and NCP(SP) member Supriya Sule.
Congress MP K Suresh stated that the party supported the impeachment move and coordinated with INDIA bloc parties. “The INDIA bloc parties are also supporting this and are also signing the letters to the Speaker,” Suresh told ANI.
Justice Yashwant Varma has approached the Supreme Court challenging the report of the in-house three-judge inquiry committee and the recommendation by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
Justice Varma claimed that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the committee before it finalized its findings. His plea was filed ahead of the monsoon session of Parliament, which began on Monday.
The cash was allegedly discovered following a fire at the judge’s residence on March 14, when he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. He was not present at the residence when the incident occurred.
In his petition, Justice Varma alleged that the committee acted with a pre-determined bias, drew adverse inferences without concrete evidence, and reversed the burden of proof.
He sought a declaration that the recommendation by the Chief Justice of India on May 8, 2025, to the President and the Prime Minister to initiate his removal was “unconstitutional and ultra vires”.
He argued that the in-house procedure adopted under a 1999 Full Court Resolution unjustifiably extended beyond its intended scope. It created, according to him, a parallel and extra-constitutional process that bypassed the established constitutional framework under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution.
His plea contended that this process usurped parliamentary authority and violated the doctrine of separation of powers, a basic feature of the Constitution. He maintained that only Parliament can initiate and carry out the removal of judges through the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Justice Varma also sought the quashing of the final report dated May 3 of the in-house committee and all consequential actions arising from it. He asserted that the invocation of the in-house procedure was “improper and invalid” as it was initiated without any formal complaint.
He further alleged that the committee denied him access to evidence, withheld CCTV footage, and examined key witnesses in his absence, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
The in-house committee was constituted on March 22 by then CJI Khanna. It comprised Justices Sheel Nagu (then Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), GS Sandhawalia (then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court).
The incident that triggered the probe was the discovery of semi-burnt wads of cash at Justice Varma’s Lutyens’ Delhi home following a fire. (ANI)
1,052 words, 6 minutes read time.
About The Author
