HomeOther LawsSupreme Court Rejects Justice Yashwant Varma’s Challenge to Impeachment Inquiry Committee

Supreme Court Rejects Justice Yashwant Varma’s Challenge to Impeachment Inquiry Committee

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, declining to interfere with the decision of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to constitute an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 in connection with impeachment proceedings initiated against the judge.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma pronounced the judgment, which had been reserved on January 8 after extensive arguments from both sides. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Justice Varma, while Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta represented the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

Background of the dispute

The controversy arises from impeachment motions moved in both Houses of Parliament on July 21, 2025, following allegations relating to the discovery of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma’s official residence. Separate notices seeking his removal were submitted in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day.

Subsequently, on August 12, 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla announced the constitution of a three-member inquiry committee comprising Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court, Justice M.M. Srivastava (a serving Chief Justice of a High Court), and Senior Advocate B.V. Acharya. The committee was formed to examine the charges forming the basis of the impeachment motion.

Justice Varma approached the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the committee’s constitution.

Core legal challenge

The principal contention raised in the writ petition was that the Speaker acted in violation of Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Justice Varma argued that since impeachment notices were submitted in both Houses on the same day, the Speaker could not unilaterally constitute the inquiry committee.

Reliance was placed on the proviso to Section 3(2), which stipulates that where notices of a motion are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no committee shall be formed unless the motion is admitted in both Houses. Further, if admitted, the committee must be constituted jointly by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

According to the petitioner, the Speaker was required to await the decision of the Rajya Sabha Chairman on the admission of the motion and thereafter engage in a joint consultation before taking any step to form the committee.

Events in the Rajya Sabha

Complicating the issue was the fact that the then Rajya Sabha Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, resigned on July 21, 2025—the same day the impeachment motions were moved. On August 11, 2025, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected the motion seeking Justice Varma’s impeachment in the Upper House.

Rohatgi argued that this rejection was itself invalid, contending that the power to admit or reject an impeachment motion was vested exclusively in the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and could not be exercised by the Deputy Chairman.

Supreme Court’s observations

During the hearing, the Bench expressed skepticism over the challenge. It noted that under the constitutional scheme, the Deputy Chairman is empowered to perform the functions of the Chairman in the latter’s absence. The Court therefore indicated that the rejection of the motion by the Deputy Chairman could not be said to be without authority.

The Bench also questioned the element of prejudice claimed by Justice Varma, observing that even assuming there were procedural irregularities, it was unclear how they had caused him any concrete legal harm at the present stage.

Outcome

By dismissing the writ petition, the Supreme Court effectively cleared the way for the inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker to proceed with its examination into the allegations against Justice Varma.

The detailed reasoning of the Court is awaited and is expected to be available once the judgment is formally uploaded.

Case Details

Case Title: x v. Office of the Speaker of the House of the People
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1233 of 2025

Read More: DGFT Amends eBRC Format to Mandate GST Details; Revised Norms Effective January 13, 2026

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular