Impeachment of Supreme Court or High Court judges in India is a rare and formidable constitutional process. Governed by Articles 124(4)–(5), 217(1)(b), and 218, and laid out in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, it demands high thresholds. Impeachment can proceed only on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity, with a motion supported by at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, followed by a two-thirds majority vote in each House, and finally a presidential order to effect removal.
Constitutional Provisions & the Process
The removal of a judge begins with a signed motion in Parliament under Articles 124, 217, and 218. If admitted by the Speaker or Chairperson, a three-member judicial inquiry committee consisting of a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist is appointed. That committee conducts an inquiry and the judge must be given a chance to defend themselves. If the committee finds evidence of misconduct or incapacity, the motion is debated and must pass both Houses of Parliament by a special majority before being sent to the President for final removal.
Historical Attempts & the Accountability Gap
India has seen several impeachment motions, but no judge has ever been formally removed through this route. Notable cases include Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993, against whom the first impeachment motion was introduced in the Lok Sabha over corruption charges. The motion failed due to abstentions despite the inquiry committee confirming misconduct. In 2011, the Rajya Sabha passed a motion against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court for misappropriation of funds, but he resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote. Similar fates befell proceedings against Justice P. D. Dinakaran and Justice C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, who resigned before completion of inquiry or vote.
These examples expose a recurring pattern: resignation before accountability. This has led to criticism that India’s judicial accountability mechanism is weak and mostly symbolic.
The Yashwant Varma Impeachment: A Constitutional Test
The current case involves Justice Yashwant Varma, formerly of the Delhi High Court and currently serving in the Allahabad High Court. In March 2025, a fire at his residence in Delhi led to the discovery of large quantities of partially burnt cash. A Supreme Court–appointed in-house inquiry panel found Justice Varma’s explanation for the cash unconvincing and indicted him for serious misconduct.
In response, more than 145 MPs from the Lok Sabha and 63 from the Rajya Sabha signed a motion seeking his removal well above the constitutional requirement. The motion was submitted in both Houses in July 2025. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju confirmed that the numbers meet the threshold and that the government is working with other parties to ensure consensus. Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal emphasized that the process is being handled as a parliamentary initiative and not as a government action.
Some voices, however, have raised caution. Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal expressed concern that proceeding on the basis of the in-house committee report, rather than forming the statutorily mandated inquiry panel under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, could set a dangerous precedent. He termed it unconstitutional and cautioned that bypassing due process in pursuit of speed could undermine judicial independence.
The motion has been admitted. The next step is the constitution of the formal inquiry committee as per the Act. If that committee finds Justice Varma guilty of misconduct or incapacity, and both Houses of Parliament pass the motion by the required two-thirds majority, the President may order his removal. Alternatively, as has happened in the past, Justice Varma may resign before the process concludes.
Implications & the Way Forward
The case of Justice Yashwant Varma is a potential turning point. It tests whether India’s impeachment process for judges can move beyond symbolism and result in meaningful accountability. If Parliament proceeds and completes the impeachment, it would mark the first successful removal of a High Court judge in India’s history. On the other hand, if the judge resigns or if Parliament fails to act decisively, the process risks being rendered ineffective once again.
The issue also revives the debate over whether India needs a more robust and time-bound judicial accountability mechanism. Critics argue that the current framework, with its heavy parliamentary requirements and political complications, is ill-suited for timely justice.
Conclusion
Impeachment of judges in India is an extraordinary constitutional remedy meant to preserve judicial integrity and public confidence. However, the repeated failure of past motions to result in actual removal has cast doubts on its effectiveness. The ongoing proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma may either breathe life into this dormant process or confirm its status as a constitutional dead letter. Either way, it will be a defining moment in India’s constitutional and judicial history.
Sources:
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/judge-cash-recovery-row-over-200-mps-seek-removal-of-justice-yashwant-varma-parties-unite-on-impeachment/articleshow/122812282.cms?utm_
- https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/justice-yashwant-varma-impeachment-delhi-high-court-judge-cash-found-at-home-what-is-impeachment-india-judge-impeachment-explained-8530243?utm_
- https://indianexpress.com/article/india/justice-varma-impeachment-motion-govt-opposition-consensus-monsoon-session-10047022/?utm_
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/