LS Speaker announces impeachment proceedings against Justice Verma
The motion for the removal of Justice Verma has been signed by 146 Lok Sabha MPs across party lines
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Tuesday (August 12) announced the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Verma. The motion for the removal of Justice Verma has been signed by 146 Lok Sabha MPs, cutting across party lines.
The reference for the initiation of proceedings to remove Justice Verma from office will be made to President Droupadi Murmu. The Member Committee, as per the Judges Inquiry Act, which will inquire into allegations made against Justice Verma, will comprise Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and BV Acharya, Senior Advocate, Karnataka High Court.
SC rejects Justice Verma's petition
Earlier, the Supreme Court on August 7, 2025, dismissed Justice Varma's petition challenging the constitutional validity of the in-house inquiry procedure that recommended his removal from judicial office.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih ruled that the inquiry committee's investigation and former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna's subsequent recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings possessed legal sanction, reported ANI.
Also Read: Supreme Court rejects Justice Yashwant Varma's plea challenging impeachment probe
Burnt cash row
The controversy began on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma's official Delhi residence while he served as a Delhi High Court judge. During firefighting operations, personnel discovered burnt currency notes in the residence's storeroom, leading to allegations of unaccounted cash. Justice Varma was vacationing in Madhya Pradesh with his wife when the incident occurred, with his daughter and mother present at the residence.
The three-member in-house inquiry committee, comprising Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab and Haryana High Court), G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court), conducted an extensive investigation over 10 days. The committee examined 55 witnesses and concluded that Justice Varma had "tacit or active control" over the storeroom where the burnt cash was found.
Also Read: Cash discovery row: Justice Varma urges SC to accord urgent hearing on his plea
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court rejected Justice Varma's arguments that the in-house procedure lacked constitutional authority and violated his fundamental rights. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, had contended that the committee exceeded its mandate by recommending removal rather than limiting itself to fact-finding.
The bench questioned why Justice Varma participated in the inquiry proceedings if he believed the process was unconstitutional, observing that his challenge appeared "not bona fide" since it came only after receiving an adverse report. The court noted that Justice Varma "submitted to the jurisdiction of the in-house committee" and failed to challenge its constitution at the outset.
(With agency inputs)