New Delhi (Gurpreet Singh): Prominent legal experts have indicated that a formal First Information Report (FIR) can now be registered against former High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma following his indictment by a three-member parliamentary inquiry committee. The Lok Sabha-constituted panel, which tabled its findings in both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday, held that all three articles of charge regarding unexplained cash at his official residence, failure to preserve evidence, and evasive explanations stand fully proved.
Senior advocate and constitutional expert Rakesh Dwivedi stated that while the parliamentary impeachment motion has effectively “worked itself out” following Justice Varma’s resignation, the findings of the inquiry committee provide sufficient grounds for criminal law enforcement agencies to initiate an FIR and probe the matter. Echoing similar views, former Allahabad High Court Bar Association president Anil Tiwari emphasized that judicial immunity protects judges only in the execution of their official judicial duties, asserting that the law ministry should now take the initiative to launch prosecution proceedings.
Conversely, Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh noted that because Justice Varma’s resignation has not yet been officially notified by the Union Law Ministry, Parliament technically retains jurisdiction to proceed with formal impeachment. Singh highlighted that a formal impeachment would strip the former judge of pensionary benefits, unlike a voluntary resignation. Other constitutional experts, including senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, pointed out that following his resignation, any requirement for special prior permission from the Chief Justice of India no longer applies, clearing procedural hurdles for standard criminal investigations.
The inquiry committee, constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, investigated allegations stemming from March 2025, when firefighters responding to a blaze at Justice Varma’s official Delhi residence discovered stacks of burnt currency notes in a storeroom. The panel concluded that the judge failed to provide a satisfactory account of the source or ownership of the money, allowed the crime scene to be disturbed before official sealing, and provided misleading responses during administrative reviews.
