The Judge Cash Yashwant Verma Case | Supreme Court Explains Judge Removal Process

In this video, we explain how a judge can be removed from office under the Indian constitutional framework, through the lens of the recent Supreme Court decision arising from the proceedings against Yashwant Verma, a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court, from whom cash of 15 crores was recovered.

The case raised important procedural questions under Article 124 of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, particularly the distinction between giving a notice of motion and admission of that motion by Parliament.

The Supreme Court was called upon to clarify:

Whether giving notice in both Houses of Parliament on the same day is enough
Or whether the law turns on admission, not mere notice
Whether rejection of a motion in one House disables the other House
The role of the Speaker and the Chairman (or Deputy Chairman) in this process
Why courts cannot read new consequences into a statute through interpretation

The Court held that:
A notice is only an expression of intent
Admission is what gives a motion legal existence
The first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act is situational, not exhaustive
Rejection in one House does not automatically nullify proceedings in the other
Creating such a disabling consequence would amount to judicial legislation
This video is a process-focused explanation, not a discussion on guilt or innocence, and is intended to help law students, judiciary aspirants, and constitutional law enthusiasts understand how judicial accountability operates within parliamentary limits.
Chapters -
0:00 X vs Speaker of House of People
1:19 Cash recovered from Judge's house
2:01 Judges Inquiry Act
3:31 Timeline of facts in Parliament
6:25 The law to remove a judge explained
10:30 Jagdeep Dhankar Resigns as Vice President
12:30 Speaker constitutes the committee
13:00 Main Argument
17:30 Core Crux of argument
19:30 Impact on Society and people