Today, On 8th January, In the Justice Yashwant Varma impeachment row, the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on his plea challenging the proceedings. The Court also denied any extension for his appearance before the three-member Lok Sabha probe committee.
The Supreme Court reserved its decision on a petition from Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma, seeking to nullify the Lok Sabha Speaker’s formation of a three-member committee for his impeachment under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SC Sharma announced the reservation of the verdict this afternoon.
The Court denied a request from Justice Varma’s legal counsel to extend the deadline for his appearance before the committee established by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
The committee requested his response in November 2025, and while the initial deadline was extended once until January 12 of this year, he is also required to appear before the committee on January 24.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal requested for Justice Varma,
“Date to appear before the committee is approaching…if that can be extended…I was earlier granted one extension,”
However, the Court rejected this plea.
The Court stated,
“You appear. File written submissions by Monday. Judgment reserved,”
During proceedings, Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Mukul Rohatgi contended that the Deputy Chairman lacked the authority to act on the impeachment motion against Justice Varma.
They asserted that the Deputy Chairman should have awaited the appointment of a new Chairman to decide on the impeachment motion, especially since the Rajya Sabha Chairman had resigned prior to making a decision regarding the case.
The Court queried,
“If there is some silence in Article 124(5) (which empowers Parliament to create laws governing the impeachment of a judge), then what shows that Article 91 (empowering the Deputy Chairman to exercise the Chairman’s powers in his absence) is excluded?”
Senior Advocate Luthra replied,
“The answer was simple. The matter could have waited till the new Chairman came in,”
Rohatgi added that recognizing Article 91 as giving the Deputy Chairman a role in impeachment proceedings is inappropriate and could lead to conflicts of interest.
He stated,
“Article 91 has no place in the scheme for the removal of judges. It only contains (provisions) to regulate the business of the House. If it applies (to impeachment proceedings), then it will lead to absurdity. The Deputy Chairman is among the members of the House, unless he is called to take the chair in exigency. The Chairman (on the other hand) is completely non-partisan. So, here there is a conflict of interest (if the Deputy Chairman decides on the impeachment motion brought by MPs). The position of a neutral judge cannot be taken by the Deputy Chairman. Applying Article 91 will lead to a conflict of interest. Only the Judges (Inquiry) Act or Article 124(5) is attracted, and nothing else. The Deputy Chairman should not have acted at all,”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi also objected to a note drafted by the Lok Sabha Secretary General, claiming that it resembled a judgment-like report and was beyond his authority to produce.
Rohatgi argued,
“(The Lok Sabha) Secretary General is no one to make a report. Cash was found burning at the residence of a house. This is a one-time act and not recurring. This affects my reputation. Every part of the judgment written by the Secretary General is laughable,”
Additionally, Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, representing Justice Varma, remarked,
“One organ, Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, cannot outweigh the decision of the other co-equal organ.”
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha officials, opposed the argument asserting that the Deputy Chairman cannot act on an impeachment motion in the absence of the Chairman, stating that such a stance would contradict the purpose of the law.
He also disputed earlier claims made by Justice Varma’s counsel that the Rajya Sabha had “impliedly” accepted the impeachment motion against the judge upon its presentation, which would mean that the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have independently proceeded with the matter.
SG Mehta clarified,
“Admission is not automatic. The Speaker (of Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (of Rajya Sabha) has to apply his mind. So, he has two options, either to admit or to refuse,”
He emphasized that the purpose of enabling joint consultations between the presiding officers of the two Houses is to prevent the duplication of proceedings.
He elaborated,
“(If impeachment motions are moved in both Houses on the same day) there is a possibility that both of them (Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairman of Rajya Sabha), being unaware of the notice being given in the other House, may end up constituting two separate committees. It is not desirable that two committees decide on two different issues. The idea, object, intent, and textual interpretation is that there should be one motion. There should not be any duplication of that motion,”
Mehta highlighted that the laws governing impeachment procedures are designed to balance the public’s right to know against the rights of the judge involved.
He asserted,
“This entire scheme balances the right of the nation to know whether there is any misbehavior which has taken place, vis-à-vis the right of the concerned judge. Where the majority of the members of the Inquiry Committee make a finding to the effect that the judge is not guilty of any misbehavior or that he does not suffer from any incapacity, and the third member makes a finding to the contrary, the Inquiry Committee shall not disclose the finding. This is how the matter is balanced,”
The law balances the right of the nation to know whether there is any misbehavior which has taken place, vis-à-vis the right of the concerned judge.
Earlier, 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.
The bench questioned whether the Act explicitly states that if a motion is rejected in one House, the other House cannot proceed.
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.
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,”
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 theJudges 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
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
