Justice Yashwant Varma Moves Supreme Court Challenging Lok Sabha's Inquiry Committee In Impeachment Proceedings

The Supreme Court today(December 16) issued notice in a plea challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma in the impeachment proceedings over the discovery of unaccounted cash currencies at his official residence.Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Justice Yashwant Varma (who filed the petition anonymously as X), appeared before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih. Challenging the process adopted, Varma has argued that despite impeachment notices being moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, 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.Rohatgi, reading the constitution of the Committee and the provisions of the 1968 Act, submitted: "Where the notices of the motion are 'given' to the Houses on the same date, that is the case here, no Committee will be constituted, this is peremptory mylords, unless the motion is being admitted in both Houses. And where such motion is admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman"He clarified that if the motion is 'admitted' only in one House, the Committee will be constituted in one House, but that is not the case here because not only the motion was given it was also admitted on the same date. He was referring to 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:" 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. Rohatgi added: "In the eventuality, which is rare, if it is given on the same day and unless the motion is formally admitted, depending upon the House, then the Committee will be jointly constituted after consultation between the Speaker and Chairman. Then, it will be called as Joint Committee of both Houses. The words are peremptory that if it is admitted on the same day."Justice Dutta asked: "Mr Rohatgi, tell us. If two motions are presented to the two Houses on the same day, where is the question of admission on the same day?"Rohatgi submitted that the motion can be 'given' on a different date, but he is arguing on the point of 'admission'. He argued that there is a distinction between 'admission' and 'given'. He said: "The words are 'given'. Please read it as filed...If two Houses are moved on the same day, both Houses of equal stature, one may require 100 signatures and one may require 50, but of equal stature and are parts of democracy. If they are moved on same day, and since both are equal, what is required to have is a joint Committee [if it is admitted on the same date]."BackgroundThe 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 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 Diary No. 71319 / 2025Click Here To Read Order

Justice Yashwant Varma Moves Supreme Court Challenging Lok Sabha's Inquiry Committee In Impeachment Proceedings

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags