Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who was at the centre of alleged cash discovery row at this residence, has tendered his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu. Justice Varma, who took oath as Allahabad High Court judge on April 5 last year, is currently facing an in-house inquiry amid possibility of a parliamentary removal proceedings in connection with the allegations.
"Your Excellency, While I do not propose to burden your august office with the reasons which have constrained me to submit this missive, it is with deep anguish that I hereby tender my resignation from the office of Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, with immediate effect. It has been an honour to serve in this office," he said in his resignation letter dated April 9.
Last month, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla also reconstituted a three-member committee to probe the grounds to remove Varma over the recovery of burnt wads of cast at his residence in New Delhi in March last year after which he was moved to the Allahabad High Court. The reconstituted committee included Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Karnataka High Court senior advocate BV Acharya.
Varma had challenged the impeachment motion and moved to the Supreme Court in December last year, where he argued that Birla had constituted the committee without Rajya Sabha Chairperson's decision on admission of the motion. He argued that no committee should have been constituted "unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses".
But the apex court in January rejected his plea and said that law cannot be used as a "weapon to scuttle parliamentary process". The order was passed by a two-judge bench which included Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma which also highlighted that constitutional safeguards for judges "cannot come at the cost of paralysing the removal process itself".
"Had the Parliament intended such far-reaching consequences, it would have articulated the first proviso in clear and unambiguous terms. The absence of any express provision to that effect is, in our opinion, determinative," the court had said in a 60-page verdict.
"Therefore, in a case where notices of motion were given in both Houses on the same day, the fact that a notice is not admitted in one House will not necessitate constitution of a joint committee and the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, can independently proceed to constitute a Committee," the verdict read.
