Today, On 7th January, Justice Yashwant Varma told the Supreme Court that under the Judges Act a joint inquiry committee is required when both Houses move motions, arguing the Lok Sabha panel became non-est in law after the Rajya Sabha motion was withdrawn.
New Delhi: Referring to the provisions of the Judges Act, 1968, Justice Yashwant Varma, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, informed a bench comprised of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma that if impeachment motions are initiated in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the same day, then a joint inquiry committee must be established by both houses.
Rohatgi asserted that in the current situation, the motion in the Rajya Sabha had been canceled, and as a result, the inquiry committee created by the Lok Sabha Speaker is ‘non-est’ in law.
He also criticized the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha for rejecting a motion that had previously been accepted by the chairperson of the upper house.
Rohatgi posed the question of whether the Lok Sabha Speaker could unilaterally establish an inquiry committee when removal motions were proposed in both Houses on the same day, with only one being admitted.
He challenged the legitimacy of the three-member committee formed by the Lok Sabha Speaker under Section 3 of the Judges Act, arguing that it contravenes the mandatory procedures outlined in Article 124 of the Constitution.
He emphasized that for a judge’s removal, Parliament must strictly follow the procedures mandated by the Act, which requires a motion to be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
Once such a motion is accepted, a committee should be formed to conduct an inquiry similar to a departmental proceeding, followed by a debate in the House.
Rohatgi pointed out that allegations against Justice Varma were raised in both Houses of Parliament on the same day, July 21, 2025. He reiterated that if notices of motion are presented in both Houses on the same day, a committee should not be formed unless the motion is admitted in both.
Thus, the Act necessitates the creation of a joint committee by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
Rohatgi stated,
“In the present case, one motion was rejected. Therefore, the committee constituted thereafter is non est in law,”
Nonetheless, the bench raised the issue of whether the rejection of a motion in one House would nullify the proceedings initiated in the other House. Rohatgi noted that according to an affidavit submitted by the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected the motion on August 11, while the Lok Sabha Speaker established the committee on August 12.
The bench questioned whether the Act explicitly states that if a motion is rejected in one House, the other House cannot proceed.
Justice Datta inquired,
“Where is the bar under the proviso for the Lok Sabha to appoint a committee if the Rajya Sabha rejects the motion?”
The Supreme Court raised,
“If one house (Rajya Sabha) rejects (the impeachment motion)… then where is the bar for Lok Sabha to appoint (a probe committee)? Why should the motion of the other House fail?”
Justice Datta suggested that a purposive interpretation of the law is necessary.
Justice Datta observed,
“Rules of construction require the proviso to be read as a part of the section. It says no joint committee can be formed unless the motion is admitted in both Houses. If (the motions are) not admitted (in both Houses), it is silent (as to whether a joint committee is required). So, we have to read it purposively to give meaning to the intention of the legislature,”
He ultimately expressed that he did not, prima facie, concur with Rohatgi’s argument that an impeachment motion in the Lok Sabha must fail if a similar motion is rejected in the Rajya Sabha.
The hearing shifted focus to whether the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha was indeed admitted. Rohatgi contended that the Rajya Sabha Chairman had acknowledged the impeachment motion, indicating that proceedings under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act had been initiated.
Rohatgi stated,
“This implies that the motion was admitted in the Rajya Sabha,”
He further argued that the Deputy Chairman cannot override the Chairman’s decision in such cases.
Rohatgi asked,
“The Deputy Chairman is, at best, equal to the Chairman. Can he review what the Chairman has passed?”
He continued,
“When he (the Chairman) sees the motion supported by 50 (Rajya Sabha) members and indicates for verification of a similar motion in the Lok Sabha, this shows implied (admission).”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered this, asserting that these events do not qualify as an implied admission of the impeachment motion.
Mehta explained,
“The Chairman was aware that he was neither admitting nor rejecting the motion. He wanted to check if another motion existed since both were presented on the same day,”
The Court concluded that it would continue to hear the matter tomorrow and examine whether Justice Varma’s rights were infringed due to the lack of consultation between the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman before establishing the probe committee.
The Court stated,
“We have to only see if we should intervene under Article 32 to determine if the individual (Justice Varma) should benefit from a joint committee,”
It also expressed concerns regarding certain communications referenced by the Solicitor General, who argued that both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha secretariats were informed about the impeachment motions raised in each House.
The Court remarked,
“Prima facie, we also think that something was amiss in the note of the Secretary General. However, we need to assess whether it warrants intervention at all. The matter will be heard tomorrow,”
Rohatgi maintained that if two motions are properly initiated on the same day, the law requires a joint process, and if either is not admitted, the entire procedure should collapse.
Justice Varma was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after bundles of burned currency notes were discovered at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Justice Varma’s challenge against the constitution of the inquiry committee on December 16, issuing notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Secretaries-General of both Houses of Parliament.
Previously, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had initiated an in-house inquiry and established a committee of three members, 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.
The committee submitted its report on May 4, finding Justice Varma guilty of misconduct.
After Justice Varma declined to resign, the CJI forwarded the report and the judge’s response to the President and the Prime Minister, thus setting the stage for impeachment proceedings.
Subsequently, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted a multi-party motion for Justice Varma’s removal on August 12 and appointed a three-member inquiry committee consisting of Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B V Acharya. Justice Varma is now seeking to quash the Speaker’s actions, the admission of the motion, and all consequential notices from the inquiry committee, arguing that the entire process is unconstitutional and violates the Judges Act.
On the evening of March 14th, a fire erupted at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence. While Justice Varma and his wife were traveling in Madhya Pradesh, his daughter and elderly mother were present when the fire broke out. Firefighters responding to the scene reportedly discovered a substantial amount of unaccounted cash.
A video subsequently emerged depicting bundles of currency engulfed in flames, sparking allegations of corruption against Justice Varma. He refuted these accusations, suggesting a conspiracy to discredit him.
Read Live Coverage