Justice Yashwant Varma, recently repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, finds himself at the center of a constitutional crisis after an in-house panel constituted by the Chief Justice of India indicted him in a corruption scandal stemming from a dramatic fire incident. The development marks a rare invocation of impeachment procedures against a sitting High Court judge.
Burning Questions: The Fire That Sparked a Scandal
On the evening of March 14, a fire broke out at the Delhi residence of Justice Yashwant Varma. What seemed like a domestic emergency took a sharp turn when Delhi fire personnel discovered charred bundles of unaccounted cash in the debris. The judge was out of town traveling in Madhya Pradesh with his wife leaving only his daughter and elderly mother at home.
The incident quickly escalated from a routine fire response to a sensational allegation of corruption. A video showing burning currency notes at the scene was reportedly forwarded by the Delhi Police Commissioner to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. In an extraordinary move, the Supreme Court later made this video and the Delhi High Court Chief Justice’s preliminary report public, alongside Justice Varma’s written defense.
Justice Varma denied all allegations, labeling the events a “conspiracy to malign him.” But as the visuals spread and pressure mounted, the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, initiated an in-house inquiry an institutional mechanism designed to internally investigate sitting judges without external criminal proceedings.
Judicial Procedure in Motion: Committee, Findings, and Fallout
The probe committee, set up on March 22 and led by Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court’s Justice Anu Sivaraman, completed its investigation by May 4.
As per constitutional procedure, the Chief Justice of India met with Justice Varma and offered him a dignified exit: resignation. Failing that, the Supreme Court would forward the committee’s report to the President of India to initiate impeachment proceedings under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
Justice Varma has been given time until Friday, May 9 to respond. Meanwhile, his judicial work has been withheld, and he was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to his parent institution the Allahabad High Court where his reappointment sparked backlash. The Allahabad High Court Bar Association went on strike to protest his return.
Legal Tensions and Uncharted Territory
The episode has unsettled the higher judiciary, exposing tensions between internal accountability mechanisms and public demand for transparency. Notably, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, refused to entertain a petition seeking a First Information Report (FIR) against Justice Varma on grounds that the in-house process was still underway.
The judge, reportedly seeking legal counsel since the probe began, has assembled a formidable team of senior advocates including Siddharth Agarwal, Arundhati Katju, Tara Narula, and Stuti Gujral, who were seen visiting his residence soon after the probe was announced.