The three-member panel, led by Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, decided to forward its report to the Lok Sabha after declaring that no further proceedings were required in view of Justice Varma’s resignation on April 9, people familiar with the development said.

Also read | Parl panel yet to close Justice Varma probe, may respond to his criticism

The committee also took on record a communication from the Union government responding to Justice Varma’s strongly worded letter criticising the inquiry. The Centre’s letter, people cited above said, rejected the allegations of procedural unfairness and bias levelled by the judge, and defended the conduct of the panel.

The formal closure marks the culmination of a high-profile and procedurally complex inquiry initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, after the Lok Sabha admitted a motion in August 2025 seeking Justice Varma’s removal.

The committee, comprising Justice Aravind Kumar, Bombay high court chief justice Shrikrishna Chandrashekhar, and senior advocate BV Acharya, had conducted multiple rounds of in-camera hearings, examined at least nine key witnesses, and was on the verge of entering the defence stage when the judge stepped down.

Justice Varma tendered his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on April 9, stating that he was doing so “with deep anguish”, without elaborating on the reasons. He also informed Chief Justice of India Surya Kant of his decision the same day. The resignation came just as he was scheduled to begin advancing his defence before the inquiry committee between April 10 and April 14.

While the resignation effectively halted the impeachment process because the statutory mechanism applies only to a sitting judge, the committee had not, until now, formally closed its proceedings. As reported earlier, the panel was expected to meet again to place on record its position on the allegations made by Justice Varma against the inquiry process and to complete necessary institutional formalities. One of the persons cited above said that the panel’s final views on the will be submitted to the Lok Sabha keeping in view the confidentiality these proceedings require.

Tuesday’s decision brings that process to an end, with the panel formally recording the conclusion of proceedings and transmitting its report to the Lok Sabha. The case arose from allegations that burnt wads of unaccounted cash were discovered at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi following a fire incident in March 2025, when he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court. A subsequent in-house inquiry conducted under the Supreme Court’s internal mechanism found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action. This led to removal motions being introduced in both Houses of Parliament in July 2025. While the Lok Sabha admitted the motion and set up the inquiry committee, the Rajya Sabha declined to admit a parallel motion, citing procedural infirmities.

In January this year, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the inquiry to proceed, rejecting Justice Varma’s legal challenge to the process. The court underscored that constitutional safeguards available to judges cannot be used to “paralyse” the removal mechanism, and held that the statutory framework provides adequate procedural protections, including the right to defend, examine and cross-examine witnesses. Following the ruling, Justice Varma appeared before the committee on January 24, and hearings were conducted in-camera in accordance with the Act.

The proceedings were initially fast-tracked but the had panel had to reconstituted in February due to the retirement of one of its members. In a 13-page letter sent to the committee on the same day as his resignation, Justice Varma had criticised the inquiry, alleging that it was “marked by unfairness from its very inception”, suffered from procedural lapses, and relied on unreliable evidence.

He also claimed he was denied a meaningful opportunity to defend himself and that the process appeared “pre-determined”. The Centre’s response, now taken on record by the panel, is understood to have rebutted these claims and defended the integrity of the inquiry. With the proceedings now formally closed, the parliamentary removal mechanism stands terminated without any finding on merits, as the constitutional scheme does not permit continuation of impeachment proceedings against a judge who has demitted office.

However, the end of the parliamentary process does not preclude the possibility of criminal proceedings. With Justice Varma no longer in office, the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution no longer applies, and investigative agencies may proceed under ordinary criminal law, subject to administrative approval of the CJI and the chief justice of the high court concerned, if sufficient material is found.