The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea filed by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, who had challenged the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit a motion seeking his removal and to set up an inquiry committee under the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968. The motion followed reports of unaccounted cash allegedly found at his official residence in Delhi last year.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma cleared the way for the three member inquiry committee to continue its work, holding that Justice Varma was not entitled to any relief. Justice Datta, while reading out the operative portion of the verdict, said the petition had no merit.
The bench firmly dismissed the judge’s argument that the Judges Inquiry Act required a joint committee to be formed and that the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman did not have the authority to reject the removal motion in the Upper House. The court had reserved its verdict last week after hearing extensive arguments on whether the procedure adopted under the 1968 law was valid, particularly since removal motions were moved in both Houses of Parliament on the same day.
Justice Varma had questioned the impeachment process initiated against him after a fire at his official residence in March 2025 allegedly led to the discovery of cash. At the time, he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court. A subsequent in house inquiry by the Supreme Court found his explanation unsatisfactory, following which then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna recommended that the matter be referred to the Prime Minister and the President.
Notices seeking Justice Varma’s removal were introduced in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on July 21, 2025. While the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion on August 12 and constituted a three member inquiry committee, the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman declined to admit the motion, calling it defective. This decision came soon after the resignation of then Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar.
Justice Varma argued that since motions were submitted in both Houses on the same day, the law required a joint committee to be formed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. He maintained that the failure to do so invalidated the entire process. The Lok Sabha secretariat, backed by the Union government, countered this by saying the Rajya Sabha motion was never admitted and therefore had no legal standing, leaving the Lok Sabha Speaker free to proceed independently.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for both Houses of Parliament, told the court that no Rajya Sabha member had challenged the rejection of the motion in the Upper House. He added that Justice Varma himself had not contested that decision, as it effectively worked in his favour. Any judicial intervention at this stage, Mehta argued, would disrupt a constitutionally mandated accountability process. He also cited Article 91 of the Constitution to state that the deputy chairman was empowered to act as Chairman during a vacancy.
During hearings on January 8, the bench repeatedly stressed the need to balance the rights of a judge facing impeachment with the will of elected representatives who had moved the motion. The court declined to halt the inquiry or grant Justice Varma additional time to respond, observing that constitutional mechanisms could not be paralysed due to vacancies or hypothetical concerns.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Agarwal and Jayant Mehta, representing Justice Varma, argued that the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman lacked the authority to reject the motion and that such power rested solely with the Chairman. They warned that allowing a deputy chairman to exercise this discretion could create conflicts of interest. The bench, however, questioned whether such possibilities could justify stalling the entire process.
As reported earlier by Hindustan Times, records placed before the Supreme Court showed that Rajya Sabha secretary general P C Mody had, in an opinion dated August 11, 2025, flagged several procedural and factual defects in the notice moved by Opposition members in the Upper House. Although the notice met the numerical requirement under the law, Mody concluded it was not valid due to incorrect legal references and inconsistencies, including mentions of events predating the fire incident. Acting on this opinion, deputy chairman Harivansh formally rejected the motion and informed the Lok Sabha secretariat.
The inquiry committee appointed by the Lok Sabha Speaker consists of Supreme Court judge Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, and senior advocate B V Acharya.
Justice Varma submitted his response to the committee on January 12, denying the allegations and asserting that no cash was recovered from his residence. He is scheduled to appear before the panel in person on January 24.
