SC rejects Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea, clears way for Lok Sabha inquiry panel

THe sublime margaret margaret court on fri dismissed a petition filed by Allahabad heights court judge Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit a motion seeking his removal following reports of unaccounted cash found at his official residence in Delhi last year, and to constitute an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.Clearing the decks for the three-member inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker to proceed further, a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma held that the judge was not entitled to any relief in the petition moved by him.The bench categorically rejected his contentions that a joint committee was mandatory under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and that the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha lacked the authority to decline admission of the removal motion in the Upper House.“We hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present case,” said Justice Datta, reading out the operative part of the verdict.The bench had last week reserved its judgment after hearing detailed arguments on whether the procedure adopted under the 1968 law was legally valid, particularly in a situation where removal motions were moved in both Houses of Parliament on the same day.Justice Varma has assailed the impeachment process initiated against him following the alleged discovery of cash at his official residence in Delhi after a fire in March 2025, when he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. A Supreme Court in-house inquiry panel subsequently found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action to the Prime Minister and the President.Subsequently, notices seeking his removal were moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on July 21, 2025. While the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion on August 12 and constituted a three-member inquiry committee, the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman – soon after the then chairman and Vice- President Jagdeep Dhankar resigned, declined to admit the motion, holding it to be defective.Justice Varma has contended that once motions were presented in both Houses on the same day, the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act mandated the constitution of a joint committee by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. The failure to do so, he argued, vitiated the entire process.The Lok Sabha secretariat, supported by the Centre, countered this argument by submitting that the Rajya Sabha motion was never admitted and therefore never attained legal existence. In such circumstances, it was argued, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha was fully competent to proceed independently and constitute an inquiry committee.Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for both Houses of Parliament, told the court that no Rajya Sabha member had challenged the rejection of the motion in the Upper House and that even Justice Varma had not assailed that decision, as it operated in his favour. Any interference by the court at this stage, Mehta argued, would derail a constitutionally sanctioned accountability mechanism.He also relied on Article 91 of the Constitution to submit that the deputy chairman was empowered to act as Chairman during a vacancy following the resignation of then Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, and that the process could not be kept in abeyance indefinitely.During the hearing on January 8, the bench repeatedly emphasised that it was required to strike a balance between the rights of a judge facing impeachment proceedings and the will of elected representatives who had moved the motion.“We have to balance in this case the judge being proceeded against and the members desirous of moving the motion as they represent the will of the people,” the bench had observed on the day, even as it declined to stall the inquiry process or grant Justice Varma additional time to respond to the committee’s notice.The court also expressed scepticism over the argument that proceedings must necessarily come to a halt in the absence of a Rajya Sabha chairman, noting that such an interpretation could paralyse the constitutional mechanism for removal of judges even in cases of physical incapacity or grave misconduct.Appearing for Justice Varma, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Agarwal and Jayant Mehta argued that the decision to reject the Rajya Sabha motion was itself legally flawed. They contended that the discretion to admit or reject such a motion lies solely with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and in his absence, the deputy chairman could not have exercised that power.They further argued that allowing a deputy chairman to take such a decision could lead to conflict-of-interest situations, including scenarios where the presiding officer may himself be a signatory to the removal motion.The bench, however, questioned whether the entire process could be stalled on the basis of such hypotheticals, observing that emergent situations could not be left unaddressed merely because a constitutional office was vacant.As reported exclusively by Hindustan Times on January 9, parliamentary records submitted to the Supreme Court revealed that Rajya Sabha secretary general PC Mody had, in a detailed opinion dated August 11, 2025, flagged multiple legal, procedural and factual infirmities in the notice moved by Opposition MPs in the Upper House.While acknowledging that the notice met the numerical threshold under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Mody concluded that it was “not in order” and “non est”, citing incorrect invocation of statutory provisions, lack of authenticated supporting material, and factual inconsistencies, including an apparent reference to events predating the fire incident itself.Acting on this opinion, deputy chairman Harivansh formally declined to admit the motion and communicated the decision to the Lok Sabha secretariat -- a move that now forms a central plank of the Speaker’s defence before the Supreme Court.The three-member inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker comprises Supreme Court’s Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras high court’s chief justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, and senior advocate BV Acharya.Justice Varma has on January 12 submitted his response to the committee, disputing the very factual basis of the allegations and asserting that no cash was ever recovered from his residence. He is scheduled to appear physically before the panel on January 24.