New Delhi : Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Saturday said the report of the three-member committee that investigated corruption allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma will be tabled in the Lok Sabha during the Monsoon Session beginning on July 20.
Can it be done despite the judge having already resigned in April 2026?
WHAT IS THE JUSTICE VARMA CASE?
The Justice Varma case refers to a high-profile corruption scandal and ongoing constitutional crisis involving Justice Yashwant Varma, a former judge of the Delhi High Court who was later transferred to the Allahabad High Court. The case centres around the discovery of a massive stash of unexplained money at his official residence and the subsequent attempt by Parliament to impeach him.
In March 2025, an accidental fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official government bungalow in New Delhi. When emergency response teams and firefighters entered the premises to extinguish the blaze, they discovered sacks and wads of half-burnt, unaccounted for currency notes hidden in a storeroom. Initial estimates suggested the cash amounted to nearly ₹15 crore.
Justice Varma strongly denied any knowledge or ownership of the money, claiming the storeroom was a “general dumping area” and suggesting there was a conspiracy to malign his reputation.
Former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member judicial in-house committee to investigate. After examining 55 witnesses and reviewing CCTV footage, the committee concluded that Justice Varma had “tacit and active control” over the room where the cash was hidden. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed a petition by Justice Varma challenging the validity of this in-house inquiry. Following the controversy, the Supreme Court Collegium transferred him to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court.
Based on the judicial finding of “serious misconduct,” 146 Members of Parliament (MPs) across party lines signed a memorandum seeking his removal. In August 2025, Birla admitted the motion and set up a formal three-member Statutory Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to officially investigate the allegations. Justice Varma legally challenged the Speaker’s power to form this panel, but the Supreme Court rejected his plea in January 2026, clearing the way for the probe.
On April 9, 2026, just as the parliamentary probe was wrapping up its final stages, Justice Varma tendered his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu with immediate effect. He withdrew from the proceedings, citing a lack of basic fairness and alleging that he was not allowed to cross-examine key witnesses. By resigning, he immediately surrendered his official judicial perks and revived his Bar Council enrolment to resume private practice as a lawyer.
WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDOFF?
Despite his resignation, the Statutory Inquiry Committee went ahead with the proceedings ex parte, finalised its findings, and submitted its report to the Lok Sabha Speaker in May 2026. Birla plans to table it in the Monsoon Session.
This has triggered a major constitutional standoff:
The Argument Against Parliamentary Action (the “Infructuous” View): According to a landmark 1978 Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court, a High Court judge’s resignation is a unilateral constitutional act. It does not require formal acceptance and becomes effective immediately. Legal experts argue that since the office is already vacant, the primary objective of impeachment—”removal from office”—becomes impossible because Parliament cannot remove someone from a position they no longer hold, according to the Hindustan Times and other reports.
The Argument for Parliamentary Action (the Accountability View): Conversely, the central government and proponents of the inquiry contend that a resignation cannot be used as an escape route to completely derail constitutional accountability. They emphasise that the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, does not explicitly state that a probe must terminate if a judge steps down. Furthermore, because the judge’s retirement benefits (such as pension and gratuity) depend on whether he “retired” normally or was “removed”, completing the parliamentary process is essential to determine whether those post-retirement benefits should be withheld, experts say.
IS THERE A PRECEDENT?
This strategy of resigning to avoid a formal vote is not new in India, but past cases have not resulted in a definitive conclusion.
Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011): He resigned while an inquiry was underway, prompting the Rajya Sabha Chairman to wind up the committee.
Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): The Rajya Sabha voted to impeach him, but he resigned just before the Lok Sabha vote. Consequently, the Lok Sabha dropped the matter as infructuous, leaving the legal loophole wide open.
WHAT IS AT STAKE?
If Parliament proceeds to debate and vote on the report, the case will almost certainly be challenged in the Supreme Court. The outcome will determine whether resignation provides complete immunity from parliamentary censure or whether the legislature retains the power to penalise misconduct retrospectively.
