The Union government might bring a motion for the impeachment of justice Yashwant Varma in the upcoming monsoon session of Parliament over allegations of a cash haul from his residence in Delhi in March, people aware of the matter said on Tuesday.

For an impeachment motion against a judge of a constitutional court to be considered by any House of Parliament, at least 50 members need to back it in the Rajya Sabha and at least 100 in the Lok Sabha. For the motion to pass, it has to garner the support of a two-thirds majority of the members in each House. This means that a successful impeachment motion will need bipartisan support.

If justice Varma is removed, he will be the first judge of a constitutional court to be.

According to a government functionary, the process of impeachment is likely to be initiated by the offices of the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman. The Monsoon session is also expected to debate the Pahalgam terror attack the Operation Sindoor. 

While the Opposition too has pushed for his impeachment, the government side is also not opposed to the idea. Rajya Sabha chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, too has questioned the delay in filing of FIR in the matter…The ruling National Democratic Alliance has the required strength to move the motion,” said the functionary quoted above.

The government informally reached out to a top-ranking Congress leader last week to gauge the principal opposition party’s position on the issue, said a second functionary. The government functionary and the Opposition leader had an extensive discussion, the functionaryadded. Other opposition parties are yet to be consulted. Trinamool Congress’s Sudip Bandopadhyay and Derek O’Brien told HT that the government had not spoken to them.

The developments come days after former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated the process for the removal of justice Varma by writing to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, stating that the allegations of recovery of cash at the judge’s residence was serious and warranted initiation of proceedings for his removal under the Constitution.

On May 5, a three-member in-house enquiry committee submitted its report to the CJI confirming that cash was indeed found at the residence of justice Varma, then a sitting Delhi high court judge. This cash was kept in a storeroom where a fire broke out March 14, following which fire service officials and police, engaged in dousing the flames, discovered half-burnt currency notes stacked in a sack. The police even recorded a video of the cash .

HT reported earlier this month that questions about the money trail and recovery of cash are likely to be at the heart of justice Varma’s defence.

The findings of the three-member committee – comprising Punjab and Haryana high court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh high court Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Karnataka high court judge, justice Anu Sivaraman – were forwarded by the CJI to justice Varma for his response. In his covering letter, the former CJI pointed out that justice Varma has the option to resign from office or seek voluntary retirement. Justice Varma is currently a judge of the Allahabad high court and on the CJI’s instruction, no judicial work is being assigned to him.

Under the Constitution, a judge can be removed only on the grounds of “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity”, on an order passed by the President. But prior to this, the President seeks the opinion of the CJI following which a motion of removal is initiated in either House of the Parliament which must be passed by a majority of “not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting”. Article 124(4) provides this procedure for Supreme Court judges and Article 217(1) read with Article 124(4), for high court judges.

Till date, no judge of the Supreme Court or high courts has been removed in this manner. Under Article 124(4), a judge may be removed from office on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The term “misbehaviour” encompasses actions that undermine judicial ethics, impartiality, and public trust in the judiciary.

An Opposition lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity said that his party might also bring up the issue of Allahabad high court judge, justice Shekhar Yadav, who had made controversial remarks at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an offshoot of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, last year.

“During the budget session, the chairman had said that he was in the process of assessing the veracity of the 55 signatures on the notice for the motion received on 13 December 2024. We would like to know the status of that notice too…the notices have been given in both the Houses and it is imperative it should be taken up too,” the lawmaker said.

Last week, vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar raised questions about the probe into allegations against justice Varma and praised former CJI Khanna for his steps in the sensational case.

Speaking at a book launch in the Capital, Dhankhar suggested that the inquiry by the three-member committee that looked into the allegations against justice Varma did not have any “constitutional premise or legal sanctity” and wondered how the panel recovered electronic equipment from witnesses.

“Everyone in the country is now thinking whether this will be washed off, whether it will fade with time, and they are really concerned. How come the criminal justice system was not operationalised as it would have done for every other individual?” Dhankhar had asked.

“This issue for which people are waiting with bated breath, the money trail, its source, its purpose, did it pollute the judicial system? Who are the bigger sharks? We need to find out,” he added.

An impeachment motion against justice V Ramaswami was brought in 1993 in the Lok Sabha but failed to secure the required two-thirds majority. A motion against justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta high court was moved and passed in the Rajya Sabha. He was the first judge to have been impeached by the Upper House for misconduct, but he resigned in 2011, before the motion could be voted on in the Lok Sabha.

Proceedings were initiated against then Sikkim high court chief justice, justice PD Dinakaran, in 2011, for alleged judicial misconduct but he, too, resigned after expressing “lack of faith and confidence” in the three-member panel probing the charges.