The Allahabad High Court Bar Association has escalated its demands, calling for a thorough and immediate review of all judgments delivered by Justice Yashwant Varma during his tenure at both the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts. They have also urged Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Bar association president Anil Tiwari stated that judges must remain "above suspicion" to uphold the dignity and credibility of the judiciary, invoking the metaphor of Julius Caesar's wife — who was expected to be beyond reproach.
This demand emerged shortly after the Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Varma’s repatriation to the Allahabad High Court, following the discovery of a large amount of partially burnt cash at his Delhi residence after a fire on March 14. Justice Varma has strongly denied any connection to the cash, insisting neither he nor his family has any knowledge of the money's origin. The incident, however, has ignited widespread outrage and debate within legal and political circles.
During a gathering of advocates in the court’s library hall on Monday, Tiwari passionately read out a resolution condemning the situation. He asserted that the judiciary — particularly the High Court and the Supreme Court — would no longer be able to claim moral superiority if the matter wasn’t thoroughly addressed. He described Justice Varma’s alleged conduct as a scandal that had "shocked the nation" and questioned whether the Constitution’s functionality itself was at risk.
Tiwari went further, declaring that Justice Varma’s continued position on the bench was "dangerous for democracy." He warned that the erosion of public faith in the judiciary was a catastrophe in the making, stating, "If faith is gone, everything is gone — the nation will collapse." He emphasized that the judiciary derives its authority from the trust of the people, and any damage to that trust weakens the entire system of governance.
The resolution also mentioned that senior advocates had reviewed the matter and unanimously agreed that the controversy wasn’t related to Justice Varma’s judicial duties. As a result, the Bar Association stated that no legal protections or special privileges — typically reserved for judges when performing their judicial functions — should apply in this case. They argued that such safeguards were meant to protect judicial independence, not to shield misconduct or unethical behavior.
The call for impeachment is now gaining momentum, with legal experts and opposition leaders weighing in on the matter. Some have called for a broader examination of judicial accountability, arguing that the system must find a balance between protecting judges from frivolous accusations and ensuring they are held to the highest standards of integrity. Others fear the case could set a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining judicial independence if not handled carefully.
Amid this escalating crisis, Justice Varma has continued to maintain his innocence, asserting that the allegations are politically motivated and aimed at tarnishing his reputation. His legal representatives have hinted at pursuing legal remedies to challenge what they describe as a "trial by media" and "unfounded assumptions."
Meanwhile, public sentiment appears divided. Some see the Bar Association's strong stance as a necessary step to preserve the judiciary’s credibility, while others worry about the long-term consequences if a sitting high court judge is impeached without concrete evidence. The coming weeks are likely to be pivotal as the Centre, Parliament, and the judiciary itself navigate this highly sensitive and unprecedented situation.
Would you like to explore how impeachment proceedings for judges work in India — or perhaps dive into historical cases where judges faced similar allegations and what outcomes followed?
