The resignation of Allahabad High Court judge justice Yashwant Varma last week may have effectively brought to a close the ongoing parliamentary inquiry into allegations of burnt wads of unaccounted cash being discovered at his official residence in Delhi last year, but it has done little to shed light on the infamous incident. The resignation rendered infructuous the proceedings initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, as the statutory mechanism for removal, triggered through a motion in Parliament, ceased to operate once the judge demitted office. Varma was facing removal proceedings following a Lok Sabha motion admitted in August 2025, with a three-member inquiry committee constituted by Speaker Om Birla to probe the charges. In a separate letter to this committee, he alleged procedural lapses, absence of credible evidence, and a “pre-determined” approach that led to his public vilification.
This might be the last word on the impeachment proceedings, but when it comes to the incident that triggered this controversy, confusion abounds. Who did the cash belong to? How did it end up in the judge’s outhouse? Have the investigators traced the source and flow of the cash? What were the exact circumstances of the discovery? Did the authorities show a lack of alacrity in following due process? Was the fire accidental or deliberate? Confidentiality norms around the impeachment exercise had stopped the flow of any information during the process. Now that it is over, the public deserves some answers. Whether these come through a criminal case or by other means is a call for the authorities to take. But a constitutional position requires probity. It serves no one to sweep the embers of this row under the carpet.
