Why judiciary stares at potential first impeachment of a high court judge

India Today

5 days ago

(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated July 14, 2025)In the complex world of Indian politics, where decisions are often made behind closed doors, parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju is on a sensitive mission. He is working to gather support from leaders across party lines for what could be a landmark moment in India's judicial history—the first impeachment of a high court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma.advertisementThe story that began with a fire in the judge's outhouse now transcends a simple corruption scandal. It lays bare the fault lines between India's judiciary and executive, exposing tensions that have simmered since the nation's founding. Dark clouds are gathering over the capital in more ways than one, and as the monsoon session of Parliament approaches, the case raises profound questions about evidence, process and power. Who watches the watchers when the watchers themselves stand accused? And what happens when the machinery of accountability becomes a weapon in institutional warfare?
THE FIRE THAT LIT A THOUSAND QUESTIONS
March 14, 2025, began as an ordinary Friday for the residents of Tughlaq Crescent, Delhi's tree-lined avenue housing judges and diplomats. Justice Varma, then serving on the Delhi High Court, was away in Bhopal with his wife. His daughter Diya remained at the No. 30 official residence, a sprawling bungalow. The household staff went about their routines, the CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) guards maintained their posts, and nothing suggested that this night would alter the trajectory of Indian jurisprudence.At approximately 11:35 pm, Diya heard what she later described as an explosion. Racing toward the sound with household staff, she discovered flames erupting from a locked storeroom situated near the servants' quarters, separated from the main residence by a boundary wall. Neither the CRPF personnel nor the guards stationed at the main gate initially responded, a detail that would later fuel conspiracy theories.When the Delhi Fire Services arrived, breaking open the padlocked door with the help of security personnel, they encountered a scene that defied explanation. Station officer Manoj Mehlawat's spontaneous exclamation, captured on a firefighter's phone video, gave the case its most memorable soundbite: 'Mahatma Gandhi mein aag lag rahi hai (Mahatma Gandhi is on fire)'. The reference was unmistakable: stacks of 500-rupee notes bearing Gandhi's image lay burning on the floor, some charred, others half-consumed by flames.The fire brigade's divisional officer, Suman Kumar, would later testify that he had 'never seen anything like it' in his career. Multiple witnesses, including firefighters and police personnel, described currency notes piled up to one and a half feet high. Yet what happened next, or rather, what didn't happen, would prove equally significant. The Delhi Police took no action to secure evidence. No seizure memo was prepared, no panchnama drawn up. Not a single currency note was preserved for forensic examination. By dawn, the burnt cash had vanished, reportedly removed by persons unknown while the crime scene lay unguarded. News of the midnight fire might have remained buried in routine police logs had not someone—the identity remains unknown—leaked the information to the media days later. The story exploded across news channels as the image of currency burning at a judge's residence struck at something fundamental in public consciousness.advertisementThe Supreme Court's institutional machinery responded with uncharacteristic speed. Within days, then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, requested a preliminary report from Delhi High Court chief justice D.K. Upadhyaya, who said that 'the entire matter warrants a deeper probe'. The SC collegium, in an extraordinary meeting, proposed Varma's immediate transfer to his parent high court in Allahabad, a clear signal the judiciary was distancing itself from potential scandal.Justice Varma's actions, or lack thereof, on his return to Delhi on March 15 would later become central to the case against him. He did not visit the burnt storeroom immediately. He filed no police complaint about what he would later claim was a conspiracy to frame him. He accepted his transfer to the Allahabad HC without protest. To his critics, this behaviour suggested guilt. To his defenders, it reflected the shock and confusion of a man blindsided by events beyond his control.advertisementOn March 22, CJI Khanna constituted a three-member committee including Justices Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana HC), G.S. Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh HC) and Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka HC to conduct an 'inhouse inquiry'. Their 64-page report, submitted on May 3, reads like a judicial indictment. The committee found that 'cash/money was found in the storeroom' based on 'direct and electronic evidence'. More damningly, they concluded that access to this room was under the 'covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members'. Through what they termed 'strong inferential evidence', they determined that Varma's most trusted staff, private secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and domestic helpers, had removed the burnt cash in the early hours of March 15.Karki allegedly instructed firefighters not to mention currency in their reports. The storeroom was cleaned the next day, destroying potential evidence. When questioned, household staff claimed ignorance but the committee found these denials unconvincing when weighed against the independent testimony of fire and police personnel.advertisementMost significantly, the committee addressed Justice Varma's defence, or lack thereof. His claim that the storeroom was accessible to outsiders was contradicted by security personnel who testified that the area was always locked and monitored. His failure to report a conspiracy, if he truly believed one existed, struck the committee as inexplicable.On the other side, Justice Varma's objections went beyond mere procedure. The committee, he noted, had already framed its inquiry around three presumptive questions: How does he account for the money in the room? What was its source? Who removed it? These questions, Varma argued, assumed that the money he claimed never belonged to him was his. Also, the committee's fact-finding mandate meant it operated without the safeguards of a proper judicial inquiry, no examination of witnesses on oath, no rules of evidence, no formal procedures to check the testimony's veracity.
1. Panel took stock of 55 witness testimonies, forensic examination of videos/ photos, as well as triangulation of electronic and call records to come to its findingsadvertisement2. Multiple visuals of charred currency retrieved. In one video, a fire officer is heard saying, 'Mahatma Gandhi mein aag lag rahi hai bhai,' referring to the image on the Rs 500 notes3. Varma's private secretary Rajinder Karki led clean-up after the blaze, raising concerns about deliberate tampering. Karki talked to Justice Varma at 1:23 am on March 15, the window when evidence may have been removed4. Varma's daughter Diya initially admitted knowing about the burnt cash on March 15, later attempted to retract statement5. Hard disk of CCTV camera monitoring storeroom is missing. Panel concluded that if footage supported his claims, Varma had ample time to produce it to prove his innocence6. When questioned by the CJI, Justice Varma could not account for the origin/ownership of the cash allegedly found at his premises
QUESTIONS OVER THE INVESTIGATIONWhen CJI Khanna, acting on the committee's report, advised Varma to resign within 48 hours, the judge's response was unequivocal. His letter of June 6 rejecting this advice struck notes of both defiance and despair. 'To accept such advice would imply my acquiescence to a process and outcome that I respectfully consider to be fundamentally unjust,' he wrote.Perhaps nothing illustrates the case's irregularities more starkly than what investigators chose not to investigate. Former law minister Kapil Sibal, reviewing the case, identifies gaps that seem less like oversights and more deliberate omissions. No forensic examination determined the fire's cause. Justice Varma's claim of an explosion was dismissed without investigation. The CCTV cameras monitoring the storeroom, potentially the most crucial evidence, had mysteriously stopped working, their data irretrievably lost by the time investigators sought it. The committee noted this failure but drew no adverse inference, instead blaming Justice Varma for not preserving footage even though he had 10 days to do so and prove his innocence.The Delhi Police's conduct raised even more questions. Here were law enforcement officers witnessing evidence of a serious crime, yet they took no action. When questioned later, the officers claimed that they were told by superiors that 'higher-ups are involved' and they should take no further action. This investigative paralysis extended to the committee itself. While acknowledging police conduct as 'slipshod', they declined to probe deeper, stating it was 'not part of their remit'. They made no attempt to trace where the cash originated, whether it was genuine or counterfeit, or how it came to be in the storeroom. The amount itself remained a matter of speculation; media reports suggested Rs 15 crore, but no official count was ever made.THE IMPEACHMENT PUZZLEAs Parliament prepares for Justice Varma's impeachment, the process itself has become contentious. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, impeachment follows a prescribed route: MPs submit a motion, the speaker or chairman admits it, a three-judge panel investigates, and only if found guilty does Parliament debate and vote. This statutory process includes crucial safeguards, including right to legal representation and evidence taken on oath.Yet minister Rijiju has suggested the government views this case as 'slightly different', hinting they might bypass the statutory inquiry since an inhouse committee has already submitted a report. This approach has alarmed constitutional experts. As Indira Jaising, who participated in India's first (unsuccessful) impeachment proceedings against an SC judge in 1991, warned, conflating the inhouse procedure with statutory requirements 'undermines Justice Varma's right to a fair procedure' and violates the law itself.The government's selective urgency becomes more apparent when contrasted with another pending impeachment. Since December 2024, 55 Rajya Sabha MPs have sought action against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad HC for alleged inflammatory communal remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. Six months later, Vice-President and RS chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar claims he's still verifying signatures. Meanwhile, Dhankhar wrote to the CJI asking him not to proceed with an inhouse inquiry against Justice Yadav, yet he now champions swift action against Justice Varma based solely on such an inquiry.
THE DEEPER GAMEThe impeachment drama is also set to become a test case in the ongoing struggle between India's judiciary and the Modi government. Since the SC struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015, declaring it unconstitutional for giving the executive too much power over judicial appointments, tensions have escalated. The government has chafed at the collegium system, where judges appoint judges, viewing it as unaccountable. Various ministers and even V-P Dhankhar have publicly criticised judicial overreach and called for greater executive oversight. The Varma case provides potent ammunition. Here's a judge with unexplained cash, and the judiciary's own investigation found him guilty. What better argument for external oversight?Yet the implications run deeper. Some experts say that by accepting an inhouse report as grounds for impeachment, by bypassing statutory safeguards, the government could set precedents that fundamentally alter judicial independence. Today's weapon against allegedly corrupt judges could become tomorrow's tool for removing inconvenient ones.Justice Varma himself represents a puzzling target. Colleagues describe him as brilliant, particularly in tax law. No whispers of impropriety marked his career. His judgments have reflected careful reasoning rather than ideological bias. Meanwhile, the fundamental mysteries remain unresolved. Whose money was burning that night? How did it arrive in a locked storeroom? The fire's cause stays unexplained. The judge mentioned an explosion while fire officers doubted the short-circuit theory. Yet no forensic examination occurred. The missing CCTV footage that might have shown who accessed the storeroom has also vanished.These gaps matter because they transform what should be a search for truth into an exercise in presumption. The committee's logic that Varma must be guilty because he couldn't prove his innocence, inverts fundamental principles of justice. As Sibal observed, 'Under which principle of criminal law can you find somebody guilty on a presumption?'Justice Yashwant Varma will likely enter history as India's first successfully impeached judge. But his removal may prove a pyrrhic victory for those seeking judicial accountability. Also, more fundamental questions of systemic judicial corruption remain unanswered. The case underscores the urgent need for structural judicial reforms that eliminate the possibility of unaccounted cash lying hidden in a judge's storehouse.HOW A JUDGE IS IMPEACHED
(Photo: Arun Kumar)
In India, a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court can be removed through impeachment, which involves a specific process outlined in the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Here's a breakdown of the process:1) Initiation: A motion for impeachment can be initiated in either the Lok Sabha (at least 100 members must sign) or the Rajya Sabha (at least 50 members must sign). In case of Justice Varma, the motion has already been admitted in Parliament2) Investigation: The presiding officer (speaker of the Lok Sabha or chairman of Rajya Sabha) can refer the motion to a three-member committee for investigation. This committee typically includes the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist. In case of Justice Varma, the Supreme Court's three-member inquiry committee has already recommended his impeachment. There is no clarity if Parliament will go by this recommendation or form a committee of its own to probe the allegations against Justice Varma3) Parliamentary Approval: If the committee finds the judge guilty, the report is presented to the respective House. For the motion to be successful, it must be passed by a special majority (two-thirds of those present and voting, and a majority of the total membership) in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The monsoon session of Parliament is likely to see debate and voting on Justice Varma's impeachment.4) Presidential Order: If both Houses pass the motion with the required majority, it is sent to the President, who then issues an order for the judge's removalSubscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch