In a significant legal development regarding judicial accountability and parliamentary procedure, Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma has moved the Supreme Court to challenge the validity of an inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker to probe corruption allegations against him.
On Wednesday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma, argued before a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma that the committee’s formation was “non-est” (non-existent) in law due to procedural violations under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The Controversy: Simultaneous Motions
The crux of the legal challenge lies in the timing and handling of the impeachment motions. Rohatgi submitted that removal motions against Justice Varma were moved in both Houses of Parliament on the same day, July 21, 2025.
According to the arguments presented, while the motion was admitted in the Lok Sabha, a similar motion was rejected by the Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha on August 11. Subsequently, on August 12, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted a three-member inquiry committee comprising Supreme Court Judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and Senior Advocate B.V. Acharya.
Rohatgi contended that under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when notices of motion are given in both Houses on the same day, a “joint committee” must be formed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. He argued that the Speaker could not unilaterally constitute a committee when the other House had rejected the motion.
“In the present case, one motion was rejected. Therefore, the committee constituted thereafter is non-est in law,” Rohatgi asserted, emphasizing that if both motions are not admitted in a simultaneous scenario, the entire exercise must fail.
The Bench’s Query
The Supreme Court bench, however, probed the absolute nature of this argument. Justices Datta and Sharma questioned whether the rejection of a motion in the Upper House automatically acts as a bar on the Lower House’s proceedings.
“Where is the bar under the proviso for the Lok Sabha to appoint a committee if the Rajya Sabha rejects the motion?” Justice Datta asked. The bench observed that the Act does not expressly state that proceedings in one House are invalidated if the other House declines the motion.
Background of the Allegations
The impeachment proceedings stem from a controversy that erupted on March 14, when burnt wads of currency notes were reportedly discovered at Justice Varma’s official residence in New Delhi. Following the incident, he was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
Earlier, an in-house inquiry committee set up by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna—comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman—investigated the matter.
The committee submitted its report on May 4, finding Justice Varma guilty of misconduct. After the judge declined to resign, the CJI forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister, paving the way for the parliamentary impeachment process.
Current Status
Justice Varma is seeking the quashing of the Speaker’s decision to admit the motion and constitute the inquiry panel, as well as all consequential notices issued by said committee. He argues that the constitution of the committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act violates the mandatory procedure prescribed under Article 124(5) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court had previously issued notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Secretaries-General of both Houses on December 16 regarding this plea. The hearing on the matter is currently underway.
