Quitting raises more questions

The resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Allahabad High Court is being seen by many as a clever legal manoeuvre, but it raises more questions than it answers. By stepping down just as impeachment pro- ceedings gathered momentum in Parliament, he has ef- fectively brought the process to a halt, since  impeachment is meant only to remove a sitting judge. Had the process run its course and ended in his re- moval, he would have forfeited several post-retirement benefits, including provident fund entitlements, and carried the indelible stain of being the first judge in India’s history to be impeached.

Instead, he has chosen a path that allows him to exit office without that formal dishonour, even as serious findings hang over his head.  In any case, he had been barred from hearing any case  after he was transferred to his parent High Court. However, resignation does not amount to exoner- ation. Justice Varma has maintained that he is innocent, alleging that adversaries conspired to plant a large  quantity of cash at his official residence in Lutyens’ Delhi while he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. It is per-tinent to point out that this defence was examined and  rejected by a three-member committee of judges ap- pointed by the apex court, which found him culpable.

The circumstances under which the cash came to light only deepen the intrigue: it was an accidental fire that  partially burnt currency notes worth crores, bringing  the hidden trove into public view. The claim that un- known enemies would risk such vast sums merely to implicate a judge strains credulity and remains unsup-ported by any convincing explanation.  Now, stripped of  judicial office, Justice Varma also loses the protective immunity that comes with it, making him answerable before the law like any other citizen.  

This episode underscores the extraordinary difficulty of removing judges from constitutional courts, a safe- guard meant to preserve judicial independence but one that can also shield misconduct. It is time to re-examine whether the existing mechanism strikes the right bal- ance between independence and accountability. More importantly, the resignation must not be allowed to close the chapter. Critical questions remain un- answered: if the money belonged to him, what was its source, and did it influence his judicial decisions?

If it  was planted, who possessed such enormous unac- counted wealth, and how did they gain access to a judge’s residence? The credibility of the judiciary dep- ends on transparent answers. Any erosion of public trust in this vital institution is a threat to democracy itself.  The resignation should, therefore, mark not the end, but the beginning of a determined process to let the law take its full and impartial course.