Today, On 16th December, Supreme Court issued notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker and Parliament secretariats on Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea challenging constitution of a three-member inquiry committee. While flagging procedural lapses, the Court questioned how such an oversight occurred during impeachment proceedings.
New Delhi: Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to form a three-member committee for his impeachment under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih has issued a notice to the Speaker and the Secretariats of both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha regarding this matter.
Varma contends that the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, acted improperly by unilaterally establishing the committee without waiting for the Rajya Sabha chairman’s admission of the motion or the joint consultation required by the statute.
He argues that this action contravenes the procedural requirements stipulated in Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The plea states,
“The Hon’ble Speaker has acted in clear derogation of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, by unilaterally constituting a Committee on 12.08.2025 after admitting a motion given before the Lok Sabha on 21.07.2025, as on the very same day a separate motion was given in the Rajya Sabha which had not been admitted,”
During today’s hearing, the Court appeared to resonate with this argument, questioning how such a procedural oversight could occur among numerous legal experts in Parliament.
Justice Datta inquired,
“So many MPs and legal experts, but no one pointed this out?”
Earlier in August, the Lok Sabha Speaker initiated the process for Justice Varma’s removal in response to cash allegedly found at a former Delhi High Court judge’s residence.
An internal investigation by three High Court judges had previously found grounds for his removal, leading the Central government to propose a parliamentary motion for impeachment, which was signed by 146 Members of Parliament and approved by the Speaker.
Consequently, a committee comprising judges was established to investigate the allegations.
- Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar,
- Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and
- Senior Advocate B Vasudeva Acharya
Impeachment is a constitutional process designed to remove a sitting judge, particularly those from the Supreme Court or a state High Court, from their position. Once appointed, judges cannot be dismissed without an order from the President, who must obtain the approval of Parliament.
While the Constitution does not explicitly use the term ‘impeachment,’ the procedure for removing judges is detailed in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 and referenced in two constitutional articles: Article 124 (pertaining to Supreme Court judges) and Article 218 (applicable to High Court judges).
An impeachment motion can be initiated in either House of Parliament.
The committee’s report must be reviewed by Parliament. If the motion is endorsed by both Houses as outlined in clause (4) of Article 124 or in conjunction with Article 218, it establishes that the judge’s misbehavior or incapacity is proven, allowing an address for their removal to be submitted to the President by both Houses during the same session, as indicated in Section 6(3) of the Act.
Earlier, Justice Yashwant Varma moved the Supreme Court challenging a report of a three-judge panel that found him guilty in connection with the discovery of unaccounted cash at his residence.
The committee, which included Chief Justice Sheel Nagu from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia from the Himachal High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman from the Karnataka High Court, investigated the allegations related to the discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s residence.
They commenced their investigation on March 25 and completed the report by May 3, which was subsequently submitted to then former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on May 4.
The report found the judge culpable, leading the former CJI to forward it to the President while recommending Justice Varma’s impeachment.
Following this, he was transferred back to the Allahabad High Court, and an inquiry initiated by Khanna found him culpable.
After Varma refused to resign, Khanna referred the matter to the President and the Prime Minister.
The committee determined, based on forensic and electronic evidence, that the currency was secretly removed in the early hours of March 15, just prior to the matter becoming public.
Also Read: Plea in Allahabad High Court: ‘Withhold Oath of Justice Yashwant Varma’
A fire broke out at Justice Varma’s home on the evening of March 14, during which unaccounted cash was inadvertently found by firefighters.
A video depicting the recovery of the burnt cash was reportedly shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
At the time of the incident, Justice Varma and his wife were traveling in Madhya Pradesh, leaving only their daughter and elderly mother at home. On March 21, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) initiated an internal investigation into the allegations, appointing a three-member committee to carry out the inquiry.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Aggarwal and Jayant Mehta represented Justice Varma before the Court, assisted by advocates Stuti Gujral, Vaibhav Niti, Keshav, Sowjhanya Shankaran, Abhinav Sekhri and Vishwajeet Singh.