Cash Row / Justice Yashwant Varma Submits Resignation as Allahabad High Court Judge
·1 hour ago·3 min read
Key Points
Justice Varma has been at the centre of controversy since burnt cash was allegedly discovered on March 14, 2025, in an outhouse at the official residence allotted to him during his tenure as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
New Delhi, April 10: Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has tendered his resignation with immediate effect to President Droupadi Murmu.
Justice Varma through a letter to the President said, “I do not propose to burden your august office with the reasons which have constrained me to submit this missive,” adding that “it is with deep anguish” that he was stepping down from the office of a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
“It has been an honour to serve in this office,” the letter read.
A copy of the resignation was also marked to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
Justice Varma has been at the centre of controversy since burnt cash was allegedly discovered on March 14, 2025, in an outhouse at the official residence allotted to him during his tenure as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
Notices of impeachment, backed by 145 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members, were moved in both Houses of Parliament in July 2025.
Subsequently, the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted a three-member enquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to examine the charges.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court rejected a plea filed by Justice Varma challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute the enquiry committee.
Pronouncing the operative part of the verdict, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma of the apex court held: “We hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present case.”
Justice Varma had questioned the constitution of the enquiry panel on procedural grounds, contending that impeachment notices moved simultaneously in both Houses required joint consultation between the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman before constituting the probe committee.
Also read: President Murmu Nominates Harivansh to Rajya Sabha for Third Term
Justice Varma had earlier also challenged the findings of a three-member in-house enquiry committee constituted by the Supreme Court, which concluded that he exercised “secret or active control” over the cash allegedly recovered from the premises.
The apex court dismissed that challenge as well, concluding that the in-house procedure was “fair and just” and did not compromise judicial independence.
Based on the in-house enquiry report, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had recommended initiation of removal proceedings, leading to the constitution of a parliamentary enquiry committee whose composition was recently revised, following the retirement of Madras High Court Chief Justice Maninder Mohan Shrivastava.
(IANS)
Justice Varma through a letter to the President said, “I do not propose to burden your august office with the reasons which have constrained me to submit this missive,” adding that “it is with deep anguish” that he was stepping down from the office of a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
“It has been an honour to serve in this office,” the letter read.
A copy of the resignation was also marked to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
Justice Varma has been at the centre of controversy since burnt cash was allegedly discovered on March 14, 2025, in an outhouse at the official residence allotted to him during his tenure as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
Notices of impeachment, backed by 145 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members, were moved in both Houses of Parliament in July 2025.
Subsequently, the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted a three-member enquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to examine the charges.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court rejected a plea filed by Justice Varma challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute the enquiry committee.
Pronouncing the operative part of the verdict, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma of the apex court held: “We hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present case.”
Justice Varma had questioned the constitution of the enquiry panel on procedural grounds, contending that impeachment notices moved simultaneously in both Houses required joint consultation between the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman before constituting the probe committee.
Also read: President Murmu Nominates Harivansh to Rajya Sabha for Third Term
Justice Varma had earlier also challenged the findings of a three-member in-house enquiry committee constituted by the Supreme Court, which concluded that he exercised “secret or active control” over the cash allegedly recovered from the premises.
The apex court dismissed that challenge as well, concluding that the in-house procedure was “fair and just” and did not compromise judicial independence.
Based on the in-house enquiry report, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had recommended initiation of removal proceedings, leading to the constitution of a parliamentary enquiry committee whose composition was recently revised, following the retirement of Madras High Court Chief Justice Maninder Mohan Shrivastava.
(IANS)
📱 Get Argus News App
✨📰 60 Word News🎬 Argus Podcast📺 Live TV and Breaking News🔔 Free Notification Alerts
Download Free:
Related Topics
Explore more stories