Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea Challenging Lok Sabha Inquiry Committee's Formation

Reliance is 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."

Yesterday, the Court was informed that the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha had rejected the impeachment motion on August 11, and it was only after that the Lok Sabha Speaker, on August 12, formed the inquiry committee. The petitioner then raised an argument that the Deputy Chairman had no power to reject the motion, and hence, the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have unilaterally formed the Committee on the premise that the motion in the Rajya Sabha stood rejected.

Another issue which arose was whether the then Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had admitted the motion on the first day itself when it was received. If there was an admission of the motion by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, then the Deputy Chairman (who assumed the position of Chairman after Dhankhar's resignation) could not have later rejected the motion, the petitioner argued. Also, if there was an admission by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, then the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have unilaterally constituted the committee, and it should have been done jointly by the LS Speaker and the RS Chairman.

Today's hearing

Today, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, for the petitioner, raised the argument that Article 124 of the Constitution is a complete code in relation to impeachment proceedings. Article 91 of the Constitution, which allows the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to perform the duties of the office of the Chairman in the latter's absence, cannot be a basis for the Deputy Chairman to exercise the discretionary powers specifically vested in the Chairman as per the Judges (Inquiry ) Act, which is enacted in terms of Article 124(5).

Luthra argued that the matter could have waited until the new Chairman was appointed. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also for Justice Varma, reiterated this argument.

However, the bench reiterated its reservations with respect to this argument. If the Vice President can exercise the functions of the President in the absence of the President, can't the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman exercise the functions of the Chairman in the latter's absence, asked Justice Datta. Rohatgi replied that the Constitution expressly empowered such actions, whereas the Judges (Inquiry) Act did not authorise the Deputy Chairman. The Act only speaks of Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman, and there is no provision that the Chairman will "mean and include" Deputy Chairman, Rohatgi submitted.

Justice Datta then pointed out that the definition clauses in the Act also use the expression "unless the context otherwise requires". 

Rohatgi argued that there is no scope for going outside the Act, and a Judge, who is facing the proceedings, has a right to demand that the procedure under the Act must be strictly followed. He reiterated that the action of the Deputy Chairman in rejecting the motion was "ultra vires".

Next, Rohatgi raised an alternative argument that one house cannot proceed with the inquiry when the other house has rejected the motion against the judge on the same material. According to him, it is to avoid this incongruous situation that the Act mandated that when motions are presented before both houses, the committee should be jointly formed.

Justice Datta then remarked that the argument will make the Act "unworkable." Justice Datta repeated the example he cited yesterday, of a defective motion being moved in a house with the deliberate intention of getting it rejected to stall the proceedings in the other house. "We cannot open the Act to misuse," the Judge said.

The bench also asked what prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to the formation of the committee. Rohatgi replied that the "test of prejudice" is irrelevant when there is a blatant infraction of the procedure under the Act, which is designed to protect Judges from frivolous impeachment proceedings.

"According to me, both the houses have to apply their mind to the motions. Not doing that has caused the prejudice to me," Rohatgi said.

Submission of the Lok Sabha Speaker's Office

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker, submitted that the proviso to Section 3(2) intends to avoid the situation of two houses constituting two separate inquiry committees.  The SG referred to the second proviso to Section 3(2), which says that if two motions are given on separate days, the later motion will lapse. From these provisions, the SG argued that the intention of the statute was that there should be only one motion pending.

"The purpose is to avoid the constitution of two inquiry committees, so that there are no conflicting opinions on the same materials," the SG said. SG also argued that there was no "demonstrable prejudice" caused to the petitioner due to the Speaker's decision.

"Will the court exercise powers under Article 32 and have the exercise be done fresh when there is no allegation against the speaker or the member of the committee or against the qualifications of the members of the committee?" Mehta submitted.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal then made brief rejoinder arguments on behalf of the petitioner. Informing the bench that the petitioner was supposed to give his response to the memo of charges by January 12, Agarwal requested that the time be extended. However, the bench did not pass any order to extend the time. "You give your response," Justice Datta said, before concluding the hearing.

It may be recalled that in July, notices of impeachment, sponsored by 145 members of Lok Sabha, and 63 members of Rajya Sabha, were submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla and the then Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar, respectively.

Subsequently, in August, the Lok Sabha speaker had announced the Committee, which consisted of Justice Arvind Kumar of the Supreme Court, Justice M M Shrivastava, Chief Justice of Madras High Court and Vasudeva Acharya, Senior Advocate of the Karnataka High Court.

Background

The issue relates to the accidental discovery of a huge pile of currency notes at an outhouse of the official residence of Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, during a fire-fighting operation on March 14.

After the discovery led to a huge public controversy, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted an in-house inquiry committee of three judges- Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice GS Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court). Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and judicial work was withdrawn from him pending the inquiry.

The committee submitted its report, prima facie finding Justice Varma's culpability, to then CJI Khanna in May, which the CJI forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister for further action, after Justice Varma refused to heed the CJI's advice to resign.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed Justice Varma's petition challenging the in-house inquiry as well as the CJI's recommendation to remove him.

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