Justice Yashwant Varma Resigns

Justice Yashwant Varma of Allahabad High Court resigned on 10th April, 202G. Earlier he was a Judge of Delhi High Court and was transferred to Allahabad High Court.

The resignation of Yashwant Varma has reignited an important debate on judicial accountability, transparency, and the effectiveness of constitutional mechanisms dealing with misconduct in the higher judiciary. While such resignations are rare, they are not unprecedented—especially at the High Court level. However, the situation is different when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Allegations and Discovery of Cash

The controversy began when large amounts of unaccounted cash were allegedly discovered in circumstances linked to Justice Varma. While the exact details of recovery were not fully made public, reports suggested that the discovery triggered serious suspicion of corruption and misconduct.

This incident quickly escalated into a matter of public and institutional concern, as it struck at the core of judicial credibility.

Administrative Action: Transfer

In response to the controversy, the judiciary took immediate administrative steps. Justice Varma was transferred from Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court by The President Mrs Murmu, which is often seen as an interim measure in sensitive cases:

Transfers in such situations are not punitive but aim to

○ defuse public controversy, and

○ ensure the functioning of the court is not affected

However, the transfer also intensified scrutiny, as it signaled that the matter was considered serious at the highest levels.

Possibility of Removal Proceedings

Following these developments, discussions emerged around initiating removal proceedings under the Constitution for “proved misbehavior.” Such proceedings require:

● A motion in Parliament

● Investigation

● Special majority approval by both the Houses of Parliament separately.

Given the gravity of the allegations, the situation appeared to be moving in that direction.

Resignation

Under the Indian constitutional framework, High Court judges cannot be easily removed. Articles 217 and 124 of the Constitution (read with the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968) provide that removal is possible only through a rigorous impeachment process in Parliament. Faced with such a process, judges often choose resignation as a way to avoid prolonged proceedings and institutional embarrassment.

Before any formal impeachment process could take shape, Justice Varma tendered his resignation. This had significant consequences:

● It immediately ended his tenure as a judge

● Any potential removal proceedings became infructuous

● The need for a full public inquiry was effectively avoided

Judicial Accountability vs Judicial Independence

The resignation highlights a long-standing tension:

• Judicial Independence: Essential for ensuring that judges can function without external pressure.

• Judicial Accountability: Equally vital to ensure that judges remain answerable for misconduct.

Resignations in such circumstances often strike a balance—but they also leave critical questions unanswered, particularly regarding guilt and institutional responsibility.

Past Removal (Impeachment) Motions against Judges

● Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): Justice V. Ramaswami was the judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court first High Court judge against whom an impeachment motion was initiated. He was charged with willful misuse of office, particularly financial misappropriation for personal extravagance. However, the motion in the Lok Sabha failed as it did not achieve the required two-thirds majority.

● Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court faced impeachment over allegations of molestation of his intern. The removal motion was introduced in Rajya Sabha and passed by Rajya Sabha by its special majority. The motion was thereafter to be placed before the Lok Sabha but Justice Sen resigned before its introduction in the Lok Sabha to avoid removal.

● Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011): Justice Dinakaran, then Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court faced allegations of corruption, land grabbing and abuse of office. A Rajya Sabha appointed committee was set to investigate but he resigned before the probe began.

● Justice S.K. Gangele (2015): Justice S.K. Gangele from Madhya Pradesh High Court faced impeachment charges of sexual harassment brought by a former Additional District and Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice to divest him of administrative control to ensure a fair inquiry. A three-member inquiry committee appointed by the Rajya Sabha eventually removed him of the charges.

● Justice J.B. Pardiwala (2015): Justice Pardiwala, then serving in Gujarat High Court and now a Supreme Court judge, faced impeachment initiated by 58 Rajya Sabha MPs. The motion objected to his remarks on reservations and corruption during a criminal petition involving sedition charges in Hardik Patel case. In his verdict, he made two remarks that the biggest hurdle in the progress of our country are corruption by politicians and continuance of reservation policy. Our parliamentarians felt offended as he criticised reservation policy and inducted politicians in corruption charges. Parliamentarians demanded the introduction of a removal motion against him. Later on, Justice Pardiwala removed his remarks from the verdict and demand of his removal was diluted.

● Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy (2017): A motion to impeach Justice Nagarjuna Reddy of Andhra Pradesh/Telangana High Court was moved by G1 Rajya Sabha MPs, accusing him of misconduct including misbehavior with a Dalit judge, disproportionate income and misconduct as an advocate. The notice for his removal failed twice as many signatories withdrew their support both times.

● Former Chief Justice Dipak Misra (2018): Opposition MPs moved a motion to impeach then CJI Dipak Misra over allegations related to the Medical College bribery case and abuse of the master of roster powers. The then Rajya Sabha Chairman Shri Vankaiya Naidu rejected the motion citing lack of “proved misbehaviour.”

● Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav (2024): A motion to impeach Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a judge of the Allahabad High Court, was formally submitted to the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha. The motion, signed by 55 Rajya Sabha MPs following Justice Yadav’s controversial speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in Prayagraj. The motion is pending with the Rajya Sabha Chairman with no formal inquiry committee having been formed yet.

Position at the Supreme Court Level

The situation at the Supreme Court is significantly different.

Has any Supreme Court judge resigned?

• Yes—but not due to corruption:

◦ Baharul Islam

▪ Resigned in 1983.

▪ His resignation was not linked to corruption, but to re-enter politics and later on became a member of Parliament.

Have any Supreme Court judges faced corruption proceedings?

• The most notable case:

V. Ramaswami

The allegations against Justice Ramaswami originated from his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

He was accused of:

● Financial irregularities

● Extravagant and improper expenditure on official residence and furnishings

● Misuse of public funds during his time in that High Court

● An impeachment motion was initiated after he became a judge of the Supreme Court of India

● A judicial inquiry committee found him guilty of certain charges of misconduct

In 1993, the motion was put to vote in the Lok Sabha:

● A large number of MPs voted in favour of removal

● However, the ruling party (Congress) abstained from voting

Because of this:

● The motion failed to secure the required special majority

● Therefore, Justice Ramaswami was not impeached/removed

Key Insight

• No Supreme Court judge in India has resigned on corruption charges.

• Compared to High Courts, resignation as an exit route is far less common at the apex level.

Key Issues Emerging from These Cases

1. Resignation as an Escape Mechanism

Many judges resign before impeachment concludes, thereby:

• Avoiding formal removal

• Escaping an official finding of guilt

2. Ineffectiveness of Impeachment

• The process is lengthy and politically influenced

• Very few cases reach completion

• Even fewer result in actual removal

3. Lack of Transparency

• In-house judicial inquiry mechanisms are often opaque

• Public confidence may be affected due to lack of clear outcomes

Conclusion

The resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma is part of a broader pattern reflecting structural gaps in India’s system of judicial accountability. While resignation preserves institutional dignity in the short term, it often undermines long-term transparency and public trust.

The contrast between High Court and Supreme Court practices is also striking—while High Court judges have resigned amid allegations, no Supreme Court judge has done so on corruption grounds. This highlights the urgent need for reforms, including:

• A more transparent judicial oversight mechanism

• Faster and more effective inquiry processes

• A better balance between independence and accountability

Ultimately, maintaining public faith in the judiciary requires not only independence but also visible and credible accountability.