Parliament is set to table the inquiry committee report regarding allegations of burnt currency found at former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's residence. This report follows the judge's resignation in April 2026, sparking a significant constitutional debate over whether removal proceedings can continue against a judge who has already stepped down.
Parliament is scheduled to table the inquiry committee report concerning allegations against former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, August 12, 2026. The report addresses the controversial discovery of burnt currency at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi in March 2025, an incident that led to his transfer and subsequent resignation.
The investigation, conducted by a three-member committee constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in August 2025, has reached a critical stage with the tabling of its findings. The core of the matter involves allegations of misconduct that Justice Varma has consistently denied, asserting that he was not present when the fire broke out and that no cash was recovered from his residence.
Justice Varma resigned from the Allahabad High Court on April 9, 2026, citing personal anguish. His resignation has introduced a complex constitutional dilemma: whether the parliamentary removal process, governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, remains valid for a judge who has already resigned. Under the Constitution, judges can only be removed for proved misbehaviour or incapacity through a specific parliamentary address. Because his resignation preceded the completion of these proceedings, the legal status of the impeachment process is currently under intense scrutiny.
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed related matters, dismissing a petition that sought a separate criminal investigation into the incident. The apex court labeled the move as an attempt for publicity, maintaining the focus on the existing institutional processes.
For those monitoring governance and judicial standards, the key development to watch will be how the Law Ministry handles the formal notification of the resignation and whether the Parliament determines that the report holds procedural significance, even if the formal impeachment process has been rendered largely infructuous by the resignation. The handling of this case serves as a test of existing mechanisms for judicial accountability and the constitutional framework governing the conduct of high-ranking judicial officers.