Justice Yashwant Varma Cash Row: Lok Sabha Speaker Reconstitutes Inquiry Panel

In a major development, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has reconstituted the committee appointed to investigate corruption charges against Justice Yashwant Varma. A notification to the effect was issued by the secretary-general of the house on February 25.

One of the three members of the committee, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava is set to retire on March 6. He has been replaced with Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar. The committee, which was originally constituted on August 12, 2025, comprised Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Senior Advocate B Vasudeva Acharya.

The three-member inquiry committee constituted to examine allegations against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma recently fast-tracked its proceedings, indicating an effort to conclude the probe before the impending retirement of one of its members. The inquiry, initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, concerns allegations of unaccounted cash having been found at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi following a fire in March 2025, when he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court.

Justice Varma first appeared before the panel on January 24, shortly after the Supreme Court dismissed his challenge to the initiation of impeachment proceedings. Since then, at least two further hearings were held last week, with the committee indicating a preference for day-to-day proceedings. Two additional dates have also been fixed this week.

The inquiry proceedings are being conducted in camera, in keeping with the statutory framework governing removal proceedings against judges. There is a strict embargo on lawyers and law officers associated with the matter from speaking to the press or discussing the proceedings outside the committee. This confidentiality requirement is intended to preserve the integrity of the process and prevent public speculation while the statutory mechanism runs its course.

In a detailed judgment delivered on January 16, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the inquiry committee to proceed. Rejecting Justice Varma’s petition challenging the Speaker’s decision to constitute the panel, the court observed that “constitutional safeguards for judges cannot come at the cost of paralysing the removal process itself.” The bench held that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any present or inevitable violation of his fundamental rights at this preliminary stage.

The top court emphasised that the Judges (Inquiry) Act provides “elaborate safeguards” to a judge facing removal proceedings. These include the framing of definite charges, a full opportunity to defend himself, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and adjudication by senior constitutional functionaries. According to the court, the statutory scheme adequately balances the need to protect judicial independence with the requirement that serious allegations of misbehaviour be examined in an effective and credible manner.

The Supreme Court also rejected Justice Varma’s contention that impeachment proceedings could not continue after the Rajya Sabha declined to admit a parallel removal motion. It held that the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit the motion and constitute an inquiry committee remained valid and autonomous, irrespective of the outcome in the Upper House.

Justice Varma has assailed the impeachment process initiated against him following the alleged discovery of cash at his official residence after the March 2025 fire. A Supreme Court in-house inquiry panel subsequently found his explanation to be unsatisfactory, prompting then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action to the Prime Minister and the President. Notices seeking his removal were thereafter moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on July 21, 2025. While the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion on August 12 and constituted the present inquiry committee, the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman declined to admit the motion, holding it to be defective.