Date:13/04/2026

To,

Smt. Droupadi Murmu,

The Hon’ble President of India,

Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi - 110004.

Subject: Representation against the acceptance of the resignation of Hon’ble Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge, Allahabad High Court, and for the continuation of the inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Respected Madam President,

I, Sattyendra Muley, a practicing advocate and a concerned citizen of India, humbly submit this representation to Your Excellency with utmost respect and in the profound interest of upholding the integrity of the Indian Judiciary and ensuring accountability in public office. This representation pertains to the reported resignation of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court, amidst an ongoing inquiry into serious allegations of misconduct.

BACKGROUND

That on March 14, 2025, a fire at the official Delhi residence of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge of the Delhi High Court of that point of time, led to the discovery of large sums of partially burnt cash in an outhouse, sparking serious suspicion of corruption and misconduct. That a three-member in-house inquiry panel, appointed by then Hon’ble Chief Justice on March 22, 2025, concluded on May 3, 2025, that Justice Varma had “covert or active control” over the cash store, despite no direct evidence of ownership. That the panel’s report was subsequently forwarded to Your Excellency and the Hon'ble Prime Minister on May 8, 2025, seeking impeachment proceedings under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. That later Justice Varma, identified anonymously as "XXX", filed a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on July 17, 2025, seeking to quash both the in-house committee’s report and the recommendation, arguing grave violations of constitutional principles and natural justice safeguards. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after hearing the matter on July 28, 2025, and posting it for further hearing on July 30, 2025, ultimately dismissed Justice Varma’s petition on August 7, 2025. That the Division Bench of Supreme Court held that the judge’s conduct “did not inspire confidence”, and ruled that the in-house inquiry mechanism and the panel constituted under Paragraphs 5 and 7(2) were constitutionally valid and legally sound, with no violation of fundamental rights. That following this, on August 12, 2025, the Lok Sabha Speaker Shri Om Birla accepted an impeachment motion signed by 146 Members of Parliament seeking the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma, and a three-member inquiry committee was duly constituted under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. That this panel comprises one siting judge of Supreme Court, Chief justice of Madras High Court, and one Senior Advocate of Supreme court. That the Lok Sabha Speaker had explicitly stated that "the process of impeachment of Justice Varma should begin" and that the motion would remain pending until the committee submitted its report. 

That it has now been widely reported, as of April 9, 2026, that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma has submitted his resignation to Your Excellency and has also withdrawn from the ongoing inquiry proceedings, citing procedural unfairness. That the acceptance of such resignation, at this critical juncture, would prematurely terminate the ongoing inquiry proceedings, thereby preventing the full discovery of truth, accountability for alleged misconduct, and the administration of justice, and would gravely undermine the constitutional scheme for judicial accountability.

GROUNDS FOR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION

Undermining the Judicial Accountability Inquiry Mechanism: The acceptance of the resignation of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma at this stage would effectively bring a premature end to the ongoing inquiry proceedings initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, thereby subverting the constitutional and statutory mechanism established for ensuring judicial accountability for "proved misbehaviour." This would leave serious allegations uninvestigated and undermine the very purpose of the impeachment process.

Grave Allegations Require Transparent Inquiry: 

The allegations of the discovery of "burnt cash" at the residence of a sitting High Court Judge are of an extremely grave nature, directly impinging upon the integrity, impartiality, and public trust reposed in the judiciary. Public interest unequivocally demands a thorough, transparent, and conclusive investigation into these allegations to ascertain the truth and ensure that justice is not only done but is manifestly seen to be done. A mere resignation, without a definitive finding by the inquiry committee, would fail to address the serious concerns raised and could be perceived as an evasion of accountability.

Failure to Initiate Criminal Action Raises Serious Doubts:

In the face of such grave allegations, it is pertinent to question why Justice Yashwant Varma did not take proactive steps to initiate criminal proceedings by lodging an FIR to facilitate a full-fledged investigation into the matter. Instead of actively seeking to uncover the truth and identify the real perpetrators, his conduct appears to have remained largely defensive. A person genuinely aggrieved by false allegations would ordinarily invoke the criminal justice machinery to clear his name and bring the actual culprits to justice. The absence of such action raises serious doubts and further underscores the need for a thorough and independent inquiry.

Resignation Would Defeat Constitutional Accountability Framework: 

The constitutional scheme for the removal of judges, as enshrined in Article 124(4) (read with Article 217) and elaborated by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is a meticulously crafted process designed to balance judicial independence with judicial accountability. Allowing a judge facing an active inquiry for "proved misbehaviour" to simply resign and escape the due process would render these vital constitutional and statutory provisions nugatory and set a dangerous precedent, weakening the accountability framework for the higher judiciary.

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Ongoing Inquiry Process: The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has already dismissed the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the legality of the in-house inquiry mechanism and the committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker. This judicial pronouncement, delivered by Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih on August 7, 2025, underscores the prima facie validity and necessity of the inquiry, reinforcing the imperative that the process must be allowed to reach its logical conclusion without interruption by a resignation tendered during its pendency.

Inquiry Essential for Truth-Finding and Public Confidence: 

The primary objective of an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is not merely to facilitate impeachment but to conduct a comprehensive fact-finding exercise to uncover the truth behind the allegations. The findings of such an inquiry are crucial for maintaining the sanctity of the judicial institution, for any potential further legal or disciplinary action against individuals involved, and for restoring public confidence. Terminating the inquiry would deprive the nation of these vital findings and leave a cloud of suspicion hanging over the judiciary.

Impeachment Ensures Forfeiture of Post-Retirement Benefits:

If the process of impeachment culminates in removal on grounds of proved misbehaviour, Justice Yashwant Varma would be disentitled from receiving post-retirement benefits and privileges attached to the office of a High Court Judge. However, if he is permitted to resign prior to the conclusion of the inquiry, he would continue to enjoy such retirement benefits despite the pendency of serious allegations. This creates an inequitable situation where resignation effectively allows circumvention of the consequences that would otherwise follow a finding of misconduct, thereby undermining the deterrent purpose of the constitutional accountability mechanism.

Resignation Could Set a Dangerous Precedent for Judicial Accountability: 

Accepting the resignation under these circumstances could establish an undesirable precedent, potentially encouraging other judges facing similar inquiries or serious allegations of misconduct to resign and thereby circumvent the rigorous and constitutionally mandated process of accountability. Such a precedent would severely erode the moral authority and credibility of the judiciary and the rule of law.

Judicial Integrity Requires Continuation of Inquiry: 

The judiciary, as a fundamental pillar of democracy, must operate on the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and ethical conduct. Any action that appears to shield alleged misconduct, even inadvertently, can significantly erode public trust and confidence in the administration of justice. The continuation of the inquiry is essential to reaffirm these foundational principles and demonstrate the judiciary's unwavering commitment to self-correction and accountability.

Impeachment Process Cannot Be Defeated by Resignation: 

The process of impeachment and inquiry is a solemn constitutional duty, not merely a procedural formality. The Lok Sabha Speaker, in constituting the committee, had explicitly stated on April 11, 2026, that the motion for impeachment would remain pending until the committee submitted its report. To allow a resignation to override this commitment would be contrary to the spirit of parliamentary oversight and judicial accountability, and would negate the collective will of the elected representatives.

Justice Must Be Seen and to be done: Inquiry Must Continue: 

The fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done is paramount, especially when allegations of such gravity are levelled against a member of the higher judiciary. Allowing a resignation to halt a constitutionally mandated inquiry would create an impression of evasion and compromise the public's perception of the judiciary's commitment to transparency and accountability, thereby eroding the very foundation of public trust.

Full Inquiry Essential to Uncover Wider Systemic Issues: 

The allegations, if substantiated by the inquiry, could potentially reveal wider systemic issues or involvement of other individuals, the investigation of which is crucial for comprehensive judicial reform and to prevent recurrence of such incidents. A truncated inquiry, due to resignation, would preclude the possibility of uncovering such broader implications, leaving critical questions unanswered and potential malpractices unaddressed, thus hindering the overall health of the judicial system.

Withdrawal from Inquiry Undermines Accountability Mechanism: 

The reported withdrawal of Justice Yashwant Varma from the inquiry proceedings on April 10, 2026, concurrently with his resignation, citing procedural unfairness, can be construed as an attempt to circumvent the rigorous scrutiny of the committee rather than a genuine challenge to the process. To accept the resignation under such circumstances would inadvertently legitimize such an approach, thereby undermining the authority and efficacy of the established inquiry mechanism and the principle of accountability.

Committee Findings Vital for Judicial Credibility and Reform: The inquiry committee represents the highest echelon of judicial and legal expertise, specifically constituted to impartially investigate the charges. The findings of such a distinguished body are indispensable for maintaining the institutional credibility of the judiciary and for guiding future policy on judicial conduct and ethics. Premature termination would render the efforts of this high-powered committee futile and deny the nation its considered findings.

In light of the foregoing, I most humbly and respectfully pray that Your Excellency may graciously consider not accepting the resignation of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma and, instead, direct the continuation of the inquiry proceedings initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to ensure that the truth is fully uncovered, accountability is established, and the integrity of the Indian judiciary is unequivocally upheld.

Thanking you in anticipation of your kind consideration and necessary action in this matter of paramount public importance.

Sincerely,

Sattyendra Muley

Advocate – Supreme Court of India and Bombay High Court

www.muley.net 

7028005951