Om Birla, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, has moved to refresh the three-member inquiry committee assigned to scrutinise the grounds for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, the judge at the centre of a high-profile cash discovery controversy, with the revised panel set to assume its mandate from March 6, 2026. This decision, formalised through an official notification from the Lok Sabha Secretariat, adjusts the composition of the panel charged with reviewing evidence and advising Parliament on whether the prescribed criteria for judicial removal have been met. The reconstituted committee comprises Justice Arvind Kumar, judge of the Supreme Court of India, as chair, Justice Chandrashekhar, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, and senior advocate B V Acharya of the Karnataka High Court. Justice Arvind Kumar and B V Acharya return from the previous iteration of the panel, while Justice Chandrashekhar replaces Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, whose retirement from that post prompted the change.
The inquiry mechanism is part of the constitutional framework for judicial accountability under the Judges Act, 1968, initiated after a motion signed by a substantial number of lawmakers was admitted by the Speaker. The motion called for an investigation into allegations of misbehaviour linked to the discovery of burnt and partially burnt cash at a property associated with Justice Varma during his tenure as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
The cash discovery, first made in March 2025 after a fire at the residence, triggered intense scrutiny and political debate. Firefighters and police responding to the blaze reported seeing stacks of charred currency notes in an outhouse, a scene described by officials at the time as alarming and highly unusual. The episode quickly moved beyond a routine fire incident to become a matter of parliamentary and legal significance, raising questions about propriety and judicial conduct.
Following the internal probe, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna recommended to the President and Prime Minister that appropriate procedures be initiated to evaluate whether Justice Varma’s alleged conduct warranted removal. Subsequently, a motion was introduced in both Houses of Parliament on July 21, 2025, seeking to trigger the inquiry process overseen by an independent panel.
The initial committee was formed on August 12, 2025, after the motion was formally admitted, with its members tasked with assessing whether the factual and legal thresholds for recommending removal under the constitution had been met. Its establishment followed constitutional requirements that an inquiry panel include a Supreme Court judge, a high court chief justice, and an eminent jurist or senior advocate.
Challenges to the inquiry process have already reached the Supreme Court, which in a January ruling upheld the Lok Sabha Speaker’s authority to form the committee. The apex court clarified that procedural objections regarding consultation between parliamentary presiding officers did not invalidate the formation of the inquiry panel, affirming that motions admitted in either House can lead to committee constitution.
Justice Varma, who was elevated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court before the controversy erupted, has contested aspects of the inquiry process on grounds of procedural fairness, including arguing that both Houses should have been consulted jointly before the committee’s formation. These legal challenges were dismissed, with the court concluding that the procedures followed did not compromise judicial independence or fairness.
The reconstitution of the panel reflects administrative adjustments within the judiciary and legislative oversight structures, as well as the ongoing nature of the inquiry. By renewing the committee’s mandate with a fresh composition, parliamentary authorities aim to maintain the momentum of the inquiry while adhering to legal and institutional norms.
Parliamentary observers note that the next steps involve detailed review of evidence by the panel, hearings with relevant parties, and eventual submission of findings to the Speaker, who will lay the report before the respective Houses. Should the committee conclude that the charges of misbehaviour or incapacity are substantiated, Parliament may then proceed to debate the motion for removal, which would require special majorities in both Houses and a subsequent Presidential order to effect any removal action.