Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma’s resignation may have effectively halted the parliamentary impeachment process against him, but the Lok Sabha-constituted inquiry committee is yet to formally close its proceedings and is expected to meet again on April 21, people aware of the matter told HT on Sunday.
The panel is also likely to issue a formal response to Justice Varma’s strongly worded communication criticising the inquiry, even as the legal consequences of his resignation begin to unfold, the people added.
“The proceedings have not been formally closed. The committee is scheduled to meet later this month, and there could be an official response to the judge’s letter,” said one person familiar with the development. Another said the panel may “institutionally place its position on record” before bringing the matter to a close.
Justice Varma tendered his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on April 9, saying he was stepping down “with deep anguish”, without elaborating. He also informed Chief Justice of India Surya Kant the same day.
The resignation came at a critical juncture in the proceedings. Justice Varma was scheduled to begin his defence before the three-member panel between April 10 and April 14, after the prosecution concluded arguments in March. The committee had examined at least nine key witnesses. On April 10, it was informed of his resignation only after proceedings had begun.
The inquiry panel — comprising Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Bombay High Court chief justice Shrikrishna Chandrashekhar, and senior advocate BV Acharya — was constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla after a motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal was admitted in August 2025.
{{/usCountry}}The inquiry panel — comprising Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Bombay High Court chief justice Shrikrishna Chandrashekhar, and senior advocate BV Acharya — was constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla after a motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal was admitted in August 2025.
{{/usCountry}}While the resignation renders impeachment proceedings under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 infructuous — since the mechanism applies only to a sitting judge — the panel’s work has not yet been formally concluded. Proceedings under the law are held in-camera and any closure is expected to follow a formal internal process.
The case stems from allegations that burnt wads of unaccounted cash were found at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi after a fire in March 2025, when he was a Delhi High Court judge. A Supreme Court in-house panel found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action.
Removal motions were subsequently introduced in both Houses of Parliament in July 2025. While the Lok Sabha admitted the motion and set up an inquiry, the Rajya Sabha declined a parallel motion, citing procedural infirmities.
In January, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the inquiry, rejecting Justice Varma’s challenge. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma held that constitutional safeguards for judges cannot be used to “paralyse” the removal process and noted that the law provides adequate procedural protection.
Following the ruling, Justice Varma appeared before the panel on January 24, with multiple rounds of in-camera hearings thereafter. The process was briefly fast-tracked due to an impending retirement of a panel member, but had to restart after reconstitution in February.
In a separate 13-page letter sent the day he resigned, Justice Varma sharply criticised the inquiry, alleging it was “marked by unfairness from its very inception”, relied on unreliable evidence, and followed a “pre-determined” approach. He also cited public vilification and said no evidence linked him to the alleged cash.
He further claimed he was denied a meaningful opportunity to defend himself, with key procedural safeguards diluted or ignored, creating an impression that his guilt had been presumed.
While the resignation halts impeachment, it does not foreclose criminal proceedings. Legal experts said that once a judge demits office, prior sanction for prosecution is no longer required, and agencies may proceed under ordinary criminal law if sufficient material emerges, although it may still require an administrative approval of the CJI and the chief justice of the high court concerned.
Once the President accepts the resignation, Justice Varma ceases to hold office and the parliamentary removal process ends without any finding on merits.
The committee, however, may still complete formalities, including placing its response on record, before closing the matter.