The Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha criticized the notice from Opposition MPs seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma over unaccounted cash allegations. He said the motion was “Not in Order” and “Non Est.”
The Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha, reportedly criticized the notice from Opposition MPs seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, following allegations of unaccounted cash being recovered from his official residence.
Mody described the notice as demonstrating a casual and cavalier approach to an extremely serious matter.
He highlighted several legal, procedural, and factual inconsistencies that rendered the motion “not in order” and “non est” (does not exist).
These comments were part of a detailed opinion dated August 11, 2025, which Mody submitted to the Rajya Sabha deputy chairperson. On the same day, he formally communicated to Lok Sabha Secretary General Utpal Kumar Singh that the motion raised in the Upper House had not been admitted.
Importantly, on January 8, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on Justice Varma’s writ petition, which challenged the validity of the Parliamentary Committee established under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to investigate the alleged cash recovery.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma of the Bench continued hearings the day after being informed that the impeachment motion against Justice Varma had been rejected by the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Justice Varma, contended that two identical motions based on the same facts were initiated concurrently in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, raising significant constitutional concerns regarding whether co-equal Houses of Parliament could allow such proceedings to unfold differently.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also for Justice Varma, argued that Article 91, which pertains to the Deputy Chairman’s powers, was irrelevant to impeachment proceedings. He asserted that removing a judge is a special business under Article 124(5), distinct from regular parliamentary functions.
Rohatgi cautioned that allowing the Deputy Chairman to act could create conflicts of interest, particularly if they or an appointed presiding officer were a signatory to the impeachment motion.
Also Read: Cash Discovery Row| Centre Initiates Impeachment Against Justice Yashwant Varma
In defense of the two parliamentary houses, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the process, stating that the Judges (Inquiry) Act was designed to prevent contradictory outcomes, such as multiple committees investigating the same allegations. He pointed out that the proviso to the Act does not grant a vested right to the judge and that the admission of a motion is not an automatic process.
Mehta emphasized that the Speaker or Chairman must evaluate the available material before making a decision. He insisted that barring the Deputy Chairman from acting in the Chairman’s absence would undermine the statutory framework and defeat the Act’s intent.
Mehta argued that the law aims to balance judicial independence with parliamentary accountability, and interpretations that hinder the inquiry process should be avoided.
Justice Varma contends that while both motions met the statutory requirement of being signed by the necessary number of Members of Parliament, only the Lok Sabha motion was admitted. Earlier, On August 12, 2025, the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted this motion and proceeded to form a three-member inquiry committee.
In contrast, the Rajya Sabha motion was never admitted. Justice Varma has approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, represented by AoR Vaibhav Niti, challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s unilateral decision to establish a three-member committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to investigate the grounds for his proposed removal as a High Court judge.
He argues that under the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when motions are presented in both Houses on the same day, neither presiding officer can act unilaterally.
A committee should only be constituted if both motions are admitted and through joint consultation between the Speaker and the Chairman.
Therefore, he claims the unilateral formation of the committee is contrary to the statute and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition also contests the subsequent actions taken by the inquiry committee.
A notice dated November 26, 2025, from the committee required Justice Varma to submit his written statement of defense and appear before it.
A subsequent communication dated December 6, 2025, instructed him to provide his defense by January 12, 2026, and to appear before the committee on January 24, 2026.