Justice Yashwant Varma has resigned from the Allahabad High Court, becoming only the third sitting judge in India’s history to step down in the face of impending impeachment proceedings. His resignation brings an abrupt halt to a rare accountability process that had gathered momentum in Parliament but had yet to reach a final vote.
Rare precedents of resignation before impeachment
Impeachment remains the highest constitutional mechanism for judicial accountability in India, but it has seldom run its full course. The closest such proceedings came in the case of Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court. Accused of misappropriation of funds, Justice Sen was found guilty of misconduct by an inquiry committee. In 2011, the Rajya Sabha passed a motion seeking his removal with overwhelming support. However, before the Lok Sabha could take up the motion, he resigned, rendering the proceedings infructuous while retaining post-retirement benefits.
A similar situation unfolded with PD Dinakaran of the Sikkim High Court. Proceedings initiated in 2011 over allegations of judicial misconduct progressed to the stage of an inquiry committee. Before Parliament could act further, Justice Dinakaran resigned, citing lack of faith in the inquiry process. The impeachment process ended automatically, and no criminal case followed.
Justice Varma’s resignation now joins this limited set of precedents where impeachment efforts advanced significantly but stopped short of a final parliamentary decision.
FCRF Launches Premier CISO Certification Amid Rising Demand for Cybersecurity Leadership
Fire incident and allegations trigger scrutiny
The controversy surrounding Justice Varma began on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at his official residence in Delhi. Firefighters reportedly recovered burnt bundles of currency from a storeroom. At the time, the judge and his wife were away, while only his daughter and elderly mother were present.
A video showing charred currency notes circulated widely, triggering allegations of corruption. Justice Varma denied any connection to the cash and maintained that he was being falsely implicated.
The matter soon entered formal scrutiny. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry and constituted a three-member committee. After reviewing its report in May 2025, he asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment. The judge declined at that stage and was subsequently transferred and stripped of judicial work.
Parliamentary process and its abrupt end
The issue then moved to Parliament. In August 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla set up a Judges Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Justice Varma challenged aspects of the process before the Supreme Court of India, but the court declined to intervene in January, allowing the inquiry to proceed.
The committee began recording evidence earlier this year. On April 9, Justice Varma submitted his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu, stating that he was stepping down with “deep anguish” and did not wish to burden the office with his reasons.
With his resignation, the impeachment process has effectively come to an end, as such proceedings lose their constitutional purpose once a judge leaves office. However, resignation does not automatically close the matter. Without the protections of judicial office, the possibility of a criminal investigation remains open, though no such action has been detailed.
The episode concludes with key questions unresolved, even as the initial images of burnt currency that triggered the controversy remain central to public scrutiny.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
