Is Justice Yashwant Varma Still A Judge Of Allahabad High Court?

Justice Varma has been embroiled in controversy since March 2025, when it emerged that burnt bundles of Rs. 500 notes were found at the storeroom in his official residence in Delhi during a fire incident. This immediately drew the attention of the Supreme Court Collegium, which transferred him from the Delhi High Court to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court. What followed next was the Supreme Court's in-house procedure(explained here) headed by the Chief Justice of India(then CJI Sanjeev Khanna), as laid down in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991).

The in-house procedure found him prima facie guilty, and the report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister by the then CJI Khanna. This became the basis for the removal motion in both Houses of Parliament. A three-member committee was constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 in August 2025 to inquire into the "misbehaviour" of the judge. However, before it could conclude, Justice Varma tendered his resignation to the President in April 2026. Nevertheless, the committee continued and reached its conclusion.

Amidst all this, the issue arose as to why the President had not notified the acceptance of Justice Varma's resignation. The controversy grew more when the Allahabad High Court's website continued to show him as a sitting judge.

LiveLaw spoke to Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who was the assisting counsel for the in-house inquiry committee headed by Justice P.B. Sawant under the Act, 1968, which inquired into allegations against Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court.

He told us the legal position is clear; it doesn't matter whether the resignation has been notified or not; it comes into effect depending on whether the judge has resigned with immediate effect or with a prospective date. He pointed out that since, in this case, Justice Varma resigned with immediate effect, it has come into effect on the date of the resignation.

Ramachandran said: “A resignation of a judge doesn't require to be accepted. He[judge] can resign from a prospective date, or he can resign with immediate effect.”

He reasoned that the President doesn't have the power to reject the resignation because, if it were otherwise, the President would have rejected Justice Varma's resignation so that the judge would remain in position and only be removed through the Parliamentary process. 

He added: “The fact that it has not been notified[by the President] doesn't mean his[Justice Varma's] resignation is not effective.”

Similar to Justice Varma, Justice P.D. Dinakaran faced allegations of large-scale corruption when he was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court in 2009. He was eventually transferred to the Sikkim High Court as its Chief Justice. However, this didn't stop a removal motion against him, and eventually a three-member committee was constituted by the Rajya Sabha Speaker, Hamid Ansari.

Just a day before the committee's first official sitting, Justice Dinakaran resigned. However, he had a "change of heart" and withdrew the resignation within a month. But he was informed that his resignation took effect immediately.

The issue arose when one of the committee members, eminent Professor Mohan Gopal, wrote to the other members requesting that the inquiry should continue. The committee consisted of Justice JS Khehar, who was at that time elevated to the Supreme Court, so there was a vacancy which had to be filled. But the Speaker buried the proceedings, saying that the judge had resigned.

LiveLaw spoke to Professor Mohan Gopal, who reiterated that the President has no role when it comes to the resignation of a judge. He stated that once the judge resigns, it comes into immediate effect, as what is warranted under Article 217. Whether the President has notified it or not doesn't affect the statutory requirement of resignation.

However, he remarked that it's very "unusual" for the Allahabad High Court not to update the website. "Usually when a judge retires, the website is updated within hours, if not within minutes, because it affects the seniority. If the website has not been updated, Justice Atul Sreedharan would be shown as no. 5 whereas Justice Varma would be shown as no. 4 on the level of seniority."

As of now, the High Court's website indeed shows Justice Varma as no.4 on the level of seniority. 

Professor Gopal also revealed that there have been reports that Justice Varma continues to receive protocols and salary as given to a sitting judge. In this regard, he urged that the website should be updated immediately to ensure transparency.

What is the law on a judge's resignation?

As per the Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra(1978) judgment, the Supreme Court explained that a High Court or a Supreme Court judge can resign either with a prospective date or with immediate effect. If he resigns with immediate effect, it comes into effect immediately. However, a resignation mentioning a future date of resignation is merely a "proposal or notice of intention to resign", and it can be withdrawn before the due date.

In this case, Justice Satish Chandra, a judge of the Allahabad High Court, wrote a letter to the President on May 7, 1997, intimating his resignation from the office with effect from August 1, 1997. However, on July 15, 1977, he again addressed a letter withdrawing his resignation. When he continued in office, an advocate filed an Article 226 petition, contending that Justice Chandra's resignation was final and irrevocable as per Article 217(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and therefore he was not allowed to hold the office anymore.

The Allahabad High Court allowed the petition and held that the judge was not competent to revoke his resignation letter. Against this order, Justice Chandra appealed before the Supreme Court. The five-judge Constitution Bench held in favour of Justice Chandra.

The Supreme Court explained the law applicable to the resignation of High Court judges. It said that the general administrative law rule applicable to government servants and constitutional functionaries is that the authority can be notified in writing that a person wishes to resign from his office from a future specified date.

In such cases, it can be withdrawn by him at any time before it becomes effective. In cases of government servants, the normal rule suggests that the termination becomes effective when it is accepted by the appropriate authority. However, in the case of a High Court judge, who is a constitutional functionary, his termination becomes effective on the date from which he, of his own volition, chooses to quit the office. This is because there are no qualifiers added to the resignation of a High Court judge, and it is his unilateral right.

The relevant provision is Article 217(1)(a), which simply says: "a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office."

In this case, Justice Murtaza Fazal Ali dissented and stated that a judge's resignation doesn't depend on acceptance by the President, as it operates "ex proprio vigore" that is, on its own force, even though the resignation may take effect on a future date.

During the hearing of this case, both sides relied on the same point but argued it differently. The judge argued that since the provision doesn't expressly mention withdrawal, it can't come into effect before the specified date. The other side argued that the very express omission suggests that the resignation becomes irrevocable once three conditions are fulfilled: the judge executes a "writing under his hand", "addressed to the President" and he mentions "resign his office".

The Supreme Court stated that in Jai Ram v. Union of India, it laid down a rule that it is open for a government servant, who has expressed a desire to retire from service, to change his mind and subsequently ask for cancellation. That is, before the authority accepts his resignation or because the due date expires, he has 'locus poenitentiae' (place of repentance).

"It will bear repetition that the general principle is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a 'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office- tenure of the resignor. This general rule is equally applicable to Government servants and constitutional functionaries."

The bench added: "In the case of a Judge of a High Court, who is a constitutional functionary and under Proviso (a) to Article 217(1) has a unilateral right, or privilege to resign his office, his resignation becomes effective and tenure terminated on the date from which he, of his own volition, chooses to quit office. If in terms of the writing under his hand addressed to the President, he resigns in praesanti, the resignation terminates his office- tenure forthwith, and cannot therefore, be withdrawn or revoked thereafter. But, if he by such Writing chooses to resign from a future date, the act resigning office is not complete because it does not terminate his tenure before such date and the Judge can at any time before the arrival of that prospective date on which it was intended to be effective, withdraw it, because the Constitution does not bar such withdrawal."

Should resignation of a judge close the inquiry?

Often an interconnected question arises as to whether, in cases where the inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act has been initiated for removal, the resignation of a judge should preempt the working of the committee.

Ramachandran says it shouldn't pre-empt the committee and appreciated that the committee in Justice Varma's case went ahead with its findings. He said: "A judge should not be allowed to preempt the findings of an inquiry by resigning. By resigning, of course, he preempts a removal motion...A judge can't be allowed to prevent a finding from being rendered after a committee has been set up with sitting judges and a senior advocate. They labour over the matter and just to preempt an adverse finding, if you resign, I think the committee has done the right thing to give its findings. "

Professor Gopal pointed out that there are two limbs to the Judges Inquiry Act. One concerns the inquiry into the "misbehaviour" and the second concerns the procedure for removal, which is initiated as a consequence of the first. He stated that the first limb isn't affected by the resignation of a judge. It is only the removal proceedings which can't be initiated since the judge has resigned. "I am happy that the committee went ahead with the findings. Once the committee is appointed, it has to submit the report. The committee's mandate was to inquire into the misbehaviour of the judge. The first limb is completed."

He also recommended that the resignation should be addressed to the Chief Justice of India rather than the executive head of the country in order to maintain judicial independence.