FPJ Analysis: A Test For Judicial Probity

In a democracy, no one is above the law—not even its interpreters. That is why the all-party initiative to bring an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court is a welcome step. It is not an assault on judicial independence but an affirmation of constitutional propriety.

Only Parliament has the authority to recommend the removal of a sitting judge of the High Courts or the Supreme Court, and when rare but serious allegations arise, it is incumbent upon elected representatives to act. Justice Varma found himself at the centre of a controversy on March 14, when a fire broke out in the outhouse of his official residence in Lutyens’ Delhi.

The fire was quickly doused, but what emerged from the ashes shocked the nation: several crores of Indian currency, burnt or partially burnt. The images that surfaced raised more than eyebrows—they raised disturbing questions about the integrity of the judiciary itself.

Although Justice Varma claimed the cash was not his and even suggested that it might have been placed there by staff, the explanation did little to convince the public. The matter was too serious to be brushed aside. It cast a dark shadow over several verdicts he had delivered in politically sensitive cases, including one involving former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal.

To its credit, the judiciary did not look the other way. Then chief justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, appointed a three-member panel of chief justices headed by Justice D.K. Upadhyaya of the Delhi High Court to probe the matter. Their report—now in the public domain—prompted the CJI to advise the government to initiate proceedings for his removal under Article 124 (4) of the Constitution. Justice Varma was transferred to Allahabad, where the Bar strongly protested. His swearing-in had to take place through the back door, and he has not been assigned any judicial work since.

While the judge has approached the Supreme Court challenging the findings, the optics remain troubling. Judges enjoy constitutional protection to function without fear or favour. But when large amounts of unexplained cash are found in their possession—accidentally or otherwise—they cannot expect to be treated differently from ordinary citizens.

Resignation followed by an attempt to prove innocence might have upheld the dignity of the office. Instead, Justice Varma is seeking the protection of the very law he is accused of undermining. In 75 years of constitutional democracy, only once—when Justice Soumitra Sen resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed a motion against him—has the process reached its logical conclusion. Four other impeachment efforts failed. Whether or not the motion against Justice Varma succeeds, one truth stands tall: Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. So must India’s judges.