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

The Supreme Court today(January 8) reserved judgment on 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 heard the matter.Yesterday, the Court orally observed that there is "some infirmity" in the Lok Sabha Speaker's constitution of the Inquiry committee, and that it will consider whether the infirmity is so grave so as to warrant the termination of the proceedings. 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 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 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 hearingToday, 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...

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

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags