BREAKING| 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 the prejudice was caused to Justice Verma, even if there was some infirmity in the procedure.

The report will be updated when the judgment is uploaded.

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