Government to initiate removal motion against Justice Yashwant Varma

Kiren Rijiju says signature process to commence soon; final decision on House of introduction pending

The government will begin the process of collecting signatures for a motion to remove Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma soon, as most of the prominent political parties have accepted, in principle, to support the motion.

The Government is set to begin the process of collecting signatures for a motion seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, with several major political parties having expressed their willingness, in principle, to support the initiative.

Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) said that while the process of obtaining signatures would commence shortly, a decision was yet to be taken on whether the motion would be introduced in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. A minimum of 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) is required for the Lok Sabha, and at least 50 MPs for the Rajya Sabha, for such a motion to be admitted.

The Monsoon Session of Parliament will begin on July 21 and conclude on August 21, following a last-minute extension of 10 days. President Droupadi Murmu gave assent to the revised schedule earlier in the day. “The Government has enough business to conduct,” Mr. Rijiju said, without elaborating on the reasons for extending the session beyond the earlier end date of August 12.

Even if the motion is introduced during the upcoming session, it is unlikely to reach a conclusion within the same period. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, once a motion for the removal of a judge is admitted in either House, the presiding officer is required to constitute a three-member committee to investigate the allegations forming the basis of the motion.

This committee is composed of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. The committee must submit its report within three months, though an extension may be granted.

Responding to speculation regarding the findings of a fact-finding panel led by the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Mr. Rijiju clarified that such a report alone could not suffice to proceed with a removal motion in Parliament. He noted that the panel had not indicted Justice Varma, but had recommended the appropriate next steps, as the constitutional authority to remove a judge rests solely with Parliament.

The case concerns a fire incident at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi in March, during his tenure as a judge of the Delhi High Court. The incident led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of currency notes in the outhouse. Justice Varma reportedly denied knowledge of the cash.

A Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry committee, however, reportedly found material to recommend removal after recording statements from several witnesses, including the judge. Justice Khanna subsequently wrote to the President and the Prime Minister, recommending Justice Varma’s removal—thereby initiating the constitutional procedure for removal of a member of the higher judiciary.