A parliamentary inquiry panel has indicted former judge Yashwant Varma in a scandal involving large sums of money kept at his residence.
The findings raise critical questions about judicial accountability and the constitutional process for removing a judge who has already resigned from the bench.
The report, which focuses on an alleged "cash-at-home" scheme, found that Varma was involved in keeping significant amounts of money at his home. According to the panel, the former judge's responses during the investigation lacked candour, transparency, and institutional responsibility.
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla said he decided to table the report in both houses of Parliament when they reconvened on July 20, 2023 [1]. The report was scheduled to be presented to the members of Parliament in New Delhi on that date [1].
While the panel found Varma guilty in the cash row, the case has created a legal puzzle for lawmakers. The primary issue is whether Parliament can formally remove or impeach a judge who is no longer serving in an official capacity. Some sources identify Varma as a former Allahabad High Court judge, while others describe him as a former Delhi High Court judge.
The "burning cash" scandal has drawn intense scrutiny toward the financial dealings of members of the judiciary. The parliamentary panel's decision to move forward with the report despite Varma's resignation signals an intent to establish a formal record of misconduct.
“"Ex-judge Yashwant Varma's response lacked candour, transparency, and institutional responsibility,"”
This case highlights a significant gap in the Indian constitutional framework regarding the impeachment of retired officials. By tabling a report that indicts a former judge, Parliament is testing whether the power of removal extends beyond active tenure to strip a former judge of benefits or establish a legal precedent for judicial misconduct.
