The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, rejecting his challenge to the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit a motion seeking his removal and to constitute an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma held that Justice Varma was not entitled to any relief, thereby clearing the way for the three-member inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker to proceed with its investigation.
“We hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present case,” Justice Datta said while pronouncing the operative part of the verdict.
Court Rejects Demand for Joint Committee
The bench categorically rejected Justice Varma’s contention that a joint inquiry committee of both Houses of Parliament was mandatory since removal motions had been moved in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day.
Justice Varma had argued that under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha were required to jointly constitute a committee. He also questioned the authority of the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman to reject the motion in the Upper House.
The court, however, accepted the Centre’s submission that the Rajya Sabha motion was never admitted and therefore did not attain legal existence. In such circumstances, the bench held, the Lok Sabha Speaker was fully competent to proceed independently.
Background of the Case
The impeachment process against Justice Varma was initiated following reports of unaccounted cash allegedly found at his official residence in Delhi after a fire in March 2025, when he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
A Supreme Court in-house inquiry panel later found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action to the Prime Minister and the President.
Subsequently, removal motions were moved in both Houses of Parliament on July 21, 2025. While the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion on August 12 and constituted an inquiry committee, the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman declined to admit the motion, citing procedural defects.
Centre’s Stand and Court’s Reasoning
Appearing for both Houses of Parliament, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that no Rajya Sabha member had challenged the rejection of the motion in the Upper House and that even Justice Varma had not assailed that decision, as it operated in his favour.
Mehta warned that judicial interference at this stage would derail a constitutionally sanctioned accountability mechanism. He also relied on Article 91 of the Constitution, asserting that the deputy chairman was empowered to act during a vacancy following the resignation of then Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar.
The bench agreed, observing that constitutional processes cannot be paralysed due to vacancies or hypothetical concerns.
Balancing Judicial Rights and Parliamentary Will
During earlier hearings, the court emphasised the need to balance the rights of a judge facing impeachment proceedings with the will of elected representatives who had moved the motion.
“We have to balance in this case the judge being proceeded against and the members desirous of moving the motion as they represent the will of the people,” the bench had noted, while refusing to stall the inquiry process.
Inquiry Panel and Next Steps
The three-member inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker includes:
-
Justice Aravind Kumar (Supreme Court)
-
Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, Chief Justice of Madras High Court
-
Senior Advocate BV Acharya
Justice Varma submitted his response to the committee on January 12, disputing the allegations and asserting that no cash was recovered from his residence. He is scheduled to appear in person before the panel on January 24.
