Supreme Court Rejects Justice Yashwant Varma's Challenge To Lok Sabha Speaker's Formation Of Inquiry Committee In Impeachment Motion

The Supreme Court today dismissed the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to form an inquiry committee as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, in the impeachment motion moved against him in relation to the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma pronounced the judgment. Judgment was reserved on January 8 after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Verma, and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

The main point raised in the petition is that despite impeachment notices being moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day (July 21), Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla proceeded to constitute the committee on his own, without awaiting the Rajya Sabha Chairman's decision on admission of the motion or holding the mandatory joint consultation prescribed by law. It is argued that this procedure is contrary to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Reliance was placed on proviso to Section 3(2) which reads: "Provided that where notices of a motion referred to in sub-section (1) are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman."

On July 21, 2025, two separate motions were moved in the Lok Sabha as well as the Rajya Sabha seeking the impeachment of Justice Varma. The then Rajya Sabha Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, tendered resignation on July 21. On August 11, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected the motion moved in the Rajya Sabha. On August 12, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla announced the formation of inquiry committee comprising Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court, Justice MM Srivastava (High Court Chief Justice) and Senior Advocate BV Acharya.

Rohatgi argued that the committee should have been jointly constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman as motions were simultaneously moved in both houses on the same day. When the Solicitor General pointed out that the Lok Sabha Speaker formed the Committee after the motion in the Rajya Sabha was rejected, Rohatgi raised the argument that the Deputy Chairman was incompetent to reject the motion, as it was a power which was specifically vested with the Rajya Sabha Chairman. However, the bench observed during the hearing that the Deputy Chairman was competent to exercise the functions of the Chairman in the latter's absence.

The bench also wondered what prejudice was caused to Justice Verma, even if there was some infirmity in the procedure.

Proviso to Section 3(2) attracted only when both motions admitted

In the judgment, rejecting Rohatgi's argument, the Court observed that a joint committee is mandated only when notices of motion given in both Houses on the same day have been admitted in both Houses. 

"It does not contemplate a scenario where a notice of motion is accepted in one House and rejected in the other. To interpret the said proviso in the manner suggested by Mr. Rohatgi would require us to read into it a disabling consequence, namely, that the motion pending in the other House must also necessarily fail. Such an interpretation would amount to judicial legislation, a course we are neither empowered nor inclined to undertake," the judgment authored by Justice Datta stated.

The Court observed that accepting such an argument would produce absurd results where the individual capacity of one House in initiating a motion under Article 124(4) becomes contingent upon the outcome in the other House, even at the stage of admission of such a motion. Taking away the autonomy of one of the two Houses of the Parliament could not have been the intent behind the first proviso.

The Court also expressed concerns about abuse, as it can give rise to situations where defective motions are deliberately moved in one House with the intention of stalling the proceedings in the other house.

"It would permit a situation where, upon getting the wind of a notice of motion being given for removal of a Judge with a real likelihood of the same being admitted by the Presiding Officer of one House, certain members of the other House not inclined to have the process of removal initiated against the Judge may deliberately give a defective notice on the same day, solely with the intention of scuttling the proceedings. Upon such notice subsequently being found to be defective and not admitted, the mere fact that such a notice was introduced on the same day would lead to the first proviso being set in action mandating constitution of a Joint Committee, as argued by the petitioner, thereby leading to frustration of the proceedings in the first House. Furthermore, it is also possible that upon introduction of the notice of motion in the second House, the Speaker or the Chairman does not admit or reject the motion. Such an act, on a literal application of the first proviso, would be sufficient to trigger the requirement of Joint Committee. The proviso cannot be allowed to be used as a weapon for scuttling proceedings or giving a veto to the Houses of Parliament," the Court noted.

The Court also rejected the argument that the Dy Chairman was incompetent to reject the motion. The Doctrine of Necessity was also invoked to reach this conclusion, as there was no Chairman in the office at the relevant time.

Reading the Judges (Inquiry) Act in isolation from the Constitution would be impermissible, the Bench said, adding that constitutional continuity required that statutory functions attached to the office of the Chairman do not lapse due to a vacancy.

Even assuming the Deputy Chairman's refusal to admit the Rajya Sabha motion was illegal, the Court held that it would not affect the validity of the Speaker's action, since the statutory requirement for a joint committee- admission in both Houses-was never fulfilled.

The Bench also noted that the petitioner had not formally challenged the Deputy Chairman's decision in the writ petition and could not seek its invalidation through oral submissions alone.

On the question of prejudice, the Court held that constitution of a committee by one House instead of a joint committee did not cause any demonstrable or irreversible prejudice to the petitioner, especially given the multiple safeguards built into the constitutional and statutory scheme, including the requirement of special majorities in both Houses before any removal can take place.

Case Details: X Vs O/O SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE|W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment