The full context surrounding the continuation of the statutory investigation against Justice Yashwant Varma, even after his resignation, has been detailed in a newly released 126 page inquiry committee report. According to the document, the three member panel proceeded to complete its work and submit its findings specifically under written directions issued by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. The report clarifies that a judge's decision to step down midway through a constitutionally mandated inquiry does not automatically terminate the proceedings, particularly when the process has reached an advanced stage of evidence recording and witness cross-examination.
Lok Sabha Speaker Mandate and Statutory Directives
The 126 page report specifically references an official communication sent by the Lok Sabha Secretariat on April 29. In that letter, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla requested the three member inquiry panel to complete its probe and submit a formal report pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. This directive was conveyed approximately 20 days after Justice Yashwant Varma submitted his resignation on April 9. The Speaker's instruction reinforced the legal position that parliamentary proceedings initiated under the governing statute cannot be rendered void simply through a unilateral resignation by the respondent judge.
Headed by Supreme Court Judge Justice Arvind Kumar, the panel explicitly noted that by April 21, it had already concluded that Justice Varma's announcement to withdraw from the inquiry would not bring the statutory process to an end. The committee emphasized that once a statutory investigation has progressed significantly, it cannot be aborted at the discretion of one party.
State of Evidence and Procedural Milestones Recorded
The report details the substantial progress made before Justice Varma opted to step back from the proceedings. Formal charges had already been framed and officially served upon him. The defence statement along with supplementary responses had been incorporated into the official record. Furthermore, all relevant documentary evidence had been thoroughly inspected, and multiple interim applications filed during the course of the inquiry had been heard and adjudicated.
In addition, the inquiry committee had recorded the testimonies of 9 witnesses who were also subjected to detailed cross-examination. A comprehensive body of documentary and electronic evidence had already been admitted onto the record. The panel pointed out that Justice Varma had actively participated in the proceedings through his legal team by challenging procedural steps, filing interim petitions, inspecting files, and questioning witnesses.
However, when the inquiry reached the stage where the defence was required to present its own witnesses and evidence, Justice Varma refrained from further participation on April 9. Because the defence failed to submit its witness list and sworn affidavits within the prescribed timeframe, the committee formally relieved his counsel from further appearances and decided to conclude the report based on the extensive material already on record.
Supreme Court Ruling on Constitutional Safeguards
Justice Varma had also mounted a legal challenge in the Supreme Court against the parliamentary proceedings initiated against him. In January 2026, a Supreme Court bench presided over by Justice Dipankar Datta dismissed his petition. The bench ruled that constitutional protections granted to judges cannot be interpreted as a means to halt or paralyze removal proceedings once legitimately set in motion.
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the non-acceptance of a parallel removal motion in the Rajya Sabha, or a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, should halt the panel constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker. This judicial ruling validated the statutory authority of the inquiry committee to proceed with its investigation.
Background: From the Delhi Residence Fire to Panel Constitution
The origins of the case date back to the night of March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi, following which burnt currency notes were allegedly discovered. An internal administrative inquiry found his explanations regarding the matter unsatisfactory. Consequently, then CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna advised him to either resign or face the constitutional process for removal.
On July 21, 2025, formal removal notices were submitted in both Houses of Parliament. On August 12, the Lok Sabha Speaker accepted the motion and constituted the inquiry committee, whereas the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the parallel notice citing technical defects. The inquiry committee initially comprised Supreme Court Judge Justice Arvind Kumar, Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, and Senior Advocate BV Acharya. Following the retirement of Justice Srivastava, Justice Chandrashekhar was appointed to complete the three member panel.
