Archive · 24 Jul 2025
Impeachment Process for Justice Varma Likely in Parliament
Imagine a judge, like a referee, is accused of doing something wrong.
If it's a serious issue, the rules say Parliament, like a big group of people, can decide if the judge should be removed from their job.
This process is called impeachment.
It involves a vote where most people in both the big meeting halls must agree.
There's also a separate, internal investigation to look into the judge's actions, and in this case, the judge is challenging the fairness of the internal review.
This process helps ensure judges are doing their jobs correctly.
Parliament is likely to initiate the removal process for former Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma.
The impeachment process requires a two-thirds majority vote in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
An inquiry committee found Justice Varma responsible for "misconduct" related to the recovery of unaccounted cash.
The Supreme Court will hear Justice Varma's challenge to the legal validity of the judiciary's in-house inquiry.
The process is separate from the internal inquiry mechanism used by the judiciary.
- Who
- Yashwant Varma, Speaker Om Birla, and members of Parliament.
- What
- Impeachment proceedings may begin against former Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma.
- When
- The process will be initiated soon, following meetings between high-ranking officials.
- Where
- In Lok Sabha (Parliament) and potentially the Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- The process follows allegations of financial impropriety and misconduct.
Justice Varma's Perspective
Parliament's Perspective
Validity of Inquiry
Justice Varma's Perspective
Justice Varma views the internal inquiry as an "extra-constitutional mechanism".
Parliament's Perspective
The judiciary is conducting an internal review
- Subject
- Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma
- Grounds for Removal
- Proved misbehaviour or incapacity
- Voting Requirement
- Two-thirds majority in both houses and >50% of total membership
- Inquiry Committee
- Three-member committee
- Internal Inquiry Finding
- Implied responsibility for misconduct