3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Apr 11, 2026 03:36 AM IST
Justice Yashwant Varma, judge of the Allahabad High Court, who is facing impeachment proceedings over the alleged discovery of burnt cash from his Delhi residence last year, has resigned from office.
With Justice Varma’s resignation — via a letter addressed to President Droupadi Murmu — the investigation by a Lok Sabha committee under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 also comes to an end, preventing what could have been the first impeachment of a judge of a constitutional court.
“While I do not propose to burden your august office with the reasons which have constrained me to submit this missive, it is with deep anguish that I hereby tender my resignation…,” he wrote to the President. “It has been an honour to serve in this office,” he said.
He also sent a copy of the letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
Upon resignation, a judge is entitled to the same pensionary benefits as a judge who superannuates from service. Justice Varma was due to retire in 2031.
With his resignation, the future course of action over allegations levelled against him enters uncharted territory. Legal experts said that resignation is a step towards foreclosing a possible impeachment motion.
This is not the first time that a judge facing allegations has opted to resign from office. In 2011, the Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran resigned from office, expressing “lack of faith and confidence” in the three-member committee examining complaints against him.
Story continues below this ad
However, while the threat of an impeachment motion ends, other legal methods could still be looked at by the government but that may require assent of the judiciary. For any court to take cognisance of an offence by a judge (for actions from the time that he held office), the Chief Justice of India would be required to grant sanction for prosecution.
“Suppose the impeachment motion succeeds, then that would have concluded the fate of a criminal proceedings as well, casting a shadow on his defence. However, now, even if there were to be a criminal case, it raises the bar,” said a senior lawyer familiar with the developments.
Separately, Justice Varma also wrote to the three-member inquiry committee, formally withdrawing from participation.
“While I do not even for a moment seek to question the expectation that the conduct of judges be examined against standards higher than those that may apply to others, even that would not justify the adoption of standards which result in a deprivation of a reasonable and fair opportunity to defend or a fair trial itself,” he wrote.
Story continues below this ad
“In these circumstances, I would be doing myself and the institution the greatest disservice by continuing to participate in the present proceedings, thereby legitimising a process that calls upon me to answer the unanswerable – where did the money come from,” he said.
