Supreme Court Notes 'Some Infirmity' In Forming Inquiry Committee On Justice Yashwant Varma; Will See If It's Grave Enough

The Supreme Court today orally observed that there is "some infirmity" in the Lok Sabha Speaker's constitution of the Inquiry committee to probe the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, and that it will consider whether the infirmity is so grave so as to warrant the termination of the proceedings.A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for inquiry against him over the discovery of unaccounted cash currencies at his official residence. On December 16, 2025, the Court had issued notice to the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker in the writ petitionThe main point raised in the petition is 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. It is argued that this procedure is contrary to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,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."During the course of today's hearing, the bench examined 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. 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."Had the Rajya Sabha also admitted the motion, he would have gotten the benefit of a joint committee. But whether it is so prejudicial to your interest that we have to interfere under Article 32?" the bench observed before adjourning the matter till tomorrow after an hour-long hearing.Petitioner's argumentSenior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Justice Varma, argued that if motions are moved simultaneously in both the Houses, then a Committee can be formed only jointly by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman. Referring to the affidavit filed by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, he said that the motion in the Rajya Sabha was rejected by the Deputy Chairman only on August 11. The Committee was formed on August 12 by the Lok Sabha Speaker. However, Rohatgi highlighted that the motions in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha were moved on the same day, July 11. Hence, after one house rejected the motion, the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have constituted the Committee, Rohatgi argued, relying on the proviso to Section 3(2).Rajya Sabha Dy Chairman's rejection won't bar Lok Sabha Speaker : Bench observesJustice Datta then asked, "If one house has rejected a motion, then where is the bar on the Lok Sabha in constituting the Committee?" Rohatgi replied that since both motions were moved on the same day, both of them require to be admitted, and only then, the Committee can be formed, that too jointly by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.Justice Datta, disagreeing with Rohatgi's reading of the proviso, illustrated a hypothetical situation - 100 members of Lok Sabha are desirious of impeaching the judge and a motion is moved and it is admitted by the Speaker; however, some members of Rajya Sabha, who want to protect the judge, with a "nefarious intention", move a motion on the same day, and the motion is signed by only 49 members with one member signing twice. The Rajya Sabha Chairman rejects the motion, finding that only 49 members actually signed it. So, will this rejection automatically result in the lapse of the validly moved motion in Lok Sabha? Justice Datta expressed that "this cannot be the intention of the statute."Justice Datta said that the proviso is silent on whether the rejection of the motion in the Rajya Sabha will bar the Lok Sabha from proceeding with it. "We have to read the silence in the provision purposively." Rohatgi contended that by the plain language of the proviso, when motions are moved in both houses on the same day, then a committee can be constituted only if both of them are admitted.RS Deputy Chairman not competent to reject the motion : RohatgiRohatgi also raised the argument that the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was not competent to reject the motion(The Rajya Sabha did not have a Chairman then, following ...

Supreme Court Notes 'Some Infirmity' In Forming Inquiry Committee On Justice Yashwant Varma; Will See If It's Grave Enough

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The Court will examine if the committee should have been jointly constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman.

Tags