Can Parl act against a judge who has already resigned?

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s decision to table the inquiry committee's report on former Allahabad high court judge justice Yashwant Varma when Parliament reconvenes on July 20 has opened an unprecedented constitutional puzzle.

- Utkarsh Anand

Following his resignation on April 9, justice Varma surrendered the official amenities and privileges attached to judicial office, ceased to draw a judicial salary, and revived his enrolment with the Bar Council, legally enabling him to resume private legal practice. His pension and other terminal benefits have not yet been released.

If justice Varma is no longer a judge, can Parliament consider removing him through impeachment? And if he continues to hold judicial office — a prerequisite for impeachment — how can that constitutional position coexist with his restored eligibility to resume private legal practice and the surrender of virtually every privilege and responsibility attached to judicial office?

These twin questions lie at the heart of an unprecedented constitutional paradox after Birla announced on Saturday that the report of the three-member inquiry committee probing allegations against justice Varma will be tabled in Parliament during the Monsoon Session.

The inquiry traces its origins to allegations of unaccounted cash being discovered at justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi in March 2025, when he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court. While the judge consistently denied any knowledge or ownership of the money, describing the allegations as a conspiracy to malign him and insisting that neither he nor any member of his family had placed cash at the site, an in-house inquiry panel of the Supreme Court found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action to the executive.

This led to the initiation of removal proceedings in Parliament, with notices being moved in both Houses in July 2025. While the Lok Sabha admitted the motion and proceeded to constitute an inquiry committee, the Rajya Sabha declined to admit a parallel motion, citing procedural infirmities. Justice Varma, however, resigned in April while the inquiry was underway.