Today, On 16th January, Supreme Court rejected Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to set up a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges Inquiry Act. The Bench delivered its ruling after reserving judgment on January 8, and declined interference.
The Supreme Court dismissed a request from Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma to set-aside the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to form a three-member committee against him under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, pertaining to his impeachment.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the ruling after reserving its judgment on January 8.
Earlier, Justice Yashwant Varma informed a Parliamentary panel that no cash was discovered at his official residence in New Delhi during the fire incident in March 2025.
He stated,
“I wasn’t present when the fire took place. No cash was recovered from my residence. I have absolutely no role in this.”
Earlier, he opposed the establishment of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker to investigate corruption allegations against him in the Supreme Court.
Throughout the hearings on the case, the Court raised concerns about whether any law prohibits the Lok Sabha Speaker from proceeding with impeachment against Varma simply because the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman might have dismissed the same motion on that day.
Additionally, the Court indicated a preliminary disagreement with the perspective that the impeachment motion would not proceed in such instances.
Importantly, on January 8, the Bench reserved its order in this matter.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Justice Varma, contended that two identical motions, based on the same facts and allegations, were filed simultaneously in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, raising a significant constitutional question about whether co-equal Houses of Parliament could allow such proceedings to yield different outcomes.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also advocating for Justice Varma, asserted that Article 91, which pertains to the powers of the Deputy Chairman, did not apply to impeachment proceedings. He argued that the removal of a judge constituted “special business” under Article 124(5), separate from the regular operations of Parliament.
Rohatgi cautioned that allowing the Deputy Chairman to act could create conflicts of interest, particularly if the Deputy Chairman or an individual designated to preside over the House was a signatory to the impeachment motion.
In defense of the two Houses of Parliament, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta upheld the process, asserting that the Judges (Inquiry) Act was crafted to prevent situations where multiple committees would investigate the same allegations.
He contended that the proviso in the Act did not grant any inherent right to the judge involved and that the approval of a motion was not guaranteed.
Mehta explained that the Speaker or Chairman needed to critically evaluate the material at hand. He warned that excluding the Deputy Chairman from exercising powers in the Chairman’s absence would make the statutory framework unfeasible and undermine the Act’s purpose.
He highlighted that the law sought to balance judicial independence with parliamentary accountability, emphasizing that any interpretation that hindered the inquiry process should be avoided.
The Bench consistently stressed the necessity to prevent a constitutional deadlock and probed whether the petitioner had shown any substantial or serious prejudice resulting from the adopted procedure.
Justice Datta remarked that constitutional institutions could not remain inactive merely due to a temporary vacancy. The petition indicated that while both motions met the statutory requirement of being signed by the requisite number of Members of Parliament, only the motion in the Lok Sabha was admitted.
Earlier, On August 12, 2025, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha accepted the motion and established a three-member inquiry committee, whereas the motion in the Rajya Sabha was never accepted.
Under the 1968 Act, once the Speaker or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha accepts a removal motion, an inquiry committee is formed to investigate the allegations. The committee’s findings serve as the foundation for subsequent parliamentary actions, including the deliberation of the removal motion.
Justice Varma was returned from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after bundles of burnt currency notes were found at his official residence on March 14, 2025.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Justice Varma’s plea against the inquiry committee’s formation on December 16, 2025, issuing notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Secretaries-General of both Houses of Parliament.
Previously, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had initiated an internal inquiry by forming a three-member committee to look into the matter. The committee delivered its report on May 4, 2025, finding Justice Varma guilty of misconduct.
After Justice Varma refused to resign, the Chief Justice of India submitted the report along with the judge’s response to the President and Prime Minister, paving the way for impeachment proceedings.
Subsequently, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted a multi-party motion for Justice Varma’s removal on August 12 and established a three-member inquiry committee, which includes Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate BV Acharya.
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.
As per sources, 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 then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) initiated an internal investigation into the allegations, appointing a three-member committee to carry out the inquiry.
Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra, Mukul Rohatgi and Jayant Mehta appeared on behalf of Justice Varma, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the officials of both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
Case Title: X v. O/O Speaker of the House of the People