From Cash Haul to Political Uproar
The recent discovery of large amounts of unaccounted cash at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has triggered a high-voltage political and judicial storm. What started as a sensational cash recovery has quickly escalated into a war of words in Parliament, with the Central government now initiating consultations with political parties for an impeachment motion. The case has stirred sharp reactions, exposed institutional sensitivities, and raised larger questions about judicial accountability in the country.
The Incident: Unexplained Cash and Judicial Silence
The controversy began when authorities uncovered a significant quantity of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma’s government accommodation in New Delhi. Despite the magnitude of the recovery, no FIR has yet been filed, prompting outrage among opposition lawmakers who accuse the system of shielding its own.
Justice Varma, who was on deputation to the Delhi High Court at the time, was soon after transferred to the Allahabad High Court. In response to the allegations, he categorically denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the cash did not belong to him and suggesting a possible setup.
Parliamentary Pressure: MPs Demand Action
The silence from investigative agencies and the judiciary in the days following the incident only intensified scrutiny. In Parliament, several MPs across party lines raised concerns over the perceived inaction, arguing that such a serious charge could not go unaddressed.
The matter became a focal point of debate, with lawmakers demanding transparency, accountability, and immediate legal proceedings. The absence of an FIR was cited as a glaring failure, prompting criticism of both the executive and judicial branches for not treating the case with the urgency it deserved.
Supreme Court's Response: Internal Review and Recommendation
In the backdrop of the political heat, the Supreme Court reportedly set up a fact-finding committee to assess the situation. While details of its proceedings remain confidential, sources suggest that the committee recommended serious consideration of Justice Varma’s removal. This internal step provided some institutional credibility to the case, opening the door for possible impeachment.
Government's Strategy: Building Cross-Party Consensus
With the scandal showing no signs of quieting down, the Central government has moved swiftly to initiate consultations with major political parties. The goal is to build consensus for an impeachment motion under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.
According to sources, the Centre is currently seeking signatures from lawmakers across party lines to support the motion. The rare and complex procedure of judicial impeachment — only invoked a handful of times in India’s history — requires careful political orchestration and broad parliamentary agreement.
A Test of Accountability and Institutional Integrity
The Justice Varma case represents more than just a corruption allegation — it is a test of the system’s ability to hold the judiciary accountable without compromising its independence. While the government’s move to seek impeachment may reflect growing political consensus, it also exposes how slowly institutions react to misconduct within their ranks.
If pursued to its logical end, the case could set a precedent for transparency and action against high-ranking judicial officers, reinforcing public faith in democratic checks and balances. But if allowed to wither amid legal technicalities and political hesitations, it risks reinforcing the perception that justice is often selective — and delayed.
(With agency inputs)
