Published on: 22 Feb, 2026 17:32 IST
The proceedings involving Justice Yashwant Varma have steadily evolved into one of the most closely watched judicial accountability matters in recent memory. For members of the Supreme Court and High Court Bar, this is not merely another controversy it is a constitutional stress test of the impeachment mechanism under Article 124 and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The matter originated on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at his Delhi residence during his tenure as a judge of the Delhi High Court, and reports subsequently surfaced alleging the discovery of burnt currency notes at the premises. An in-house inquiry committee of the Supreme Court reportedly found prima facie material suggesting misconduct, following which impeachment motions were admitted in Parliament and a three-member inquiry committee was constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court without judicial work and has consistently denied any wrongdoing, asserting that no lawful recovery of cash was documented and that the allegations suffer from procedural and evidentiary defects.
In January 2026, he approached the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the parliamentary committee, arguing that its constitution did not comply with Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act; however, the Court dismissed his plea, reinforcing its long-standing position, as seen in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991), that it will not ordinarily interfere with impeachment proceedings once Parliament has lawfully initiated them.
Shortly thereafter, Justice Varma filed a detailed defence before the parliamentary panel, denying presence during the incident, questioning the absence of seizure memos, and challenging the chain of custody of the alleged currency. Adding complexity to the matter, statements reportedly attributed to the Delhi Fire Services in February 2026 suggested that no cash was officially recovered during firefighting operations, creating a significant evidentiary contradiction that could influence the committee’s findings.
At present, no final vote has been taken in Parliament and the inquiry remains ongoing, but the episode has already reignited debate over transparency in judicial asset disclosures, the balance between judicial independence and parliamentary oversight, and the procedural safeguards required in impeachment inquiries. Regardless of its ultimate outcome, the case stands as a defining moment in India’s constitutional history, underscoring that accountability mechanisms within the higher judiciary, though rare, are both complex and consequential for public confidence in the justice system.