Justice Varma’s decision comes in the wake of a high-profile inquiry triggered by the recovery of partially burnt wads of currency notes from his official residence in New Delhi on March 14 last year. The incident had raised serious questions about judicial propriety and led to calls for his removal.
The resignation was submitted to President Droupadi Murmu on April 9, according to official sources. In his resignation letter addressed to the President, Justice Varma struck a restrained tone. “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… with immediate effect. It has been an honour to serve in this office,” the letter read.
The controversy had earlier prompted the judiciary to transfer Justice Varma from the Delhi High Court back to the Allahabad High Court, a move widely seen as an interim administrative measure while investigations continued.
Legal experts say the resignation could have implications for the impeachment process, which is constitutionally mandated and requires parliamentary approval. “Once a judge resigns, the continuation of impeachment proceedings becomes a matter of legal and procedural interpretation,” said a senior constitutional lawyer, noting that such instances are rare but not unprecedented.
The discovery of burnt currency at a sitting judge’s residence had sparked intense debate within legal and political circles, with concerns over accountability in the higher judiciary. While no official findings of wrongdoing have yet been made public, the episode has underscored the need for greater transparency and institutional safeguards.
Government and judicial authorities have so far refrained from detailed public comment, citing the sensitivity of the matter. Meanwhile, Justice Varma’s resignation is expected to be formally processed by the President’s office in the coming days.
The development marks a significant moment in India’s judicial landscape, raising broader questions about ethics, oversight, and public trust in the judiciary.
