The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, who has questioned the legality and constitutionality of a parliamentary inquiry committee constituted to probe corruption allegations against him. The case raises significant constitutional questions on the procedure for initiating impeachment proceedings against judges and the interpretation of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma heard extensive arguments from both sides before reserving its decision. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra appeared on behalf of Justice Varma, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, and the institutional interests of Parliament.

At the heart of the dispute lies Justice Varma’s challenge to the process adopted by the Lok Sabha Speaker in admitting a motion for his removal and constituting an inquiry committee, particularly after a similar motion was rejected in the Rajya Sabha. Justice Varma contends that the steps taken by the Speaker are contrary to the scheme laid down under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and violate constitutional safeguards meant to protect judicial independence.

During the hearing, Rohatgi and Luthra argued that the Judges Act clearly specifies the authorities empowered to admit a motion for removal of a judge. According to them, only the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, acting within the contours of the statute, are entitled to admit such motions. They submitted that once a motion was rejected in the Rajya Sabha, the process could not be unilaterally revived or carried forward by the Lok Sabha Speaker alone.

The senior counsel contended that the law envisages a coordinated and structured process, ensuring that impeachment proceedings against judges are not triggered lightly or arbitrarily. They argued that the rejection of the motion in one House of Parliament had legal consequences and that proceeding further despite such rejection amounted to an abuse of parliamentary power. According to Justice Varma’s counsel, the inquiry committee constituted by the Speaker lacked jurisdiction and legal authority, rendering the entire process void ab initio.

On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly defended the constitution of the parliamentary inquiry panel. He submitted that the constitutional and statutory framework allows for the admission of a motion if it meets the prescribed requirements in either House of Parliament. Mehta argued that once a motion is admitted in both Houses—irrespective of the sequence—the Judges Inquiry Act permits the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to jointly constitute an inquiry committee.

Mehta further contended that the rejection of a motion in one House does not permanently foreclose the possibility of impeachment proceedings, especially if the procedural requirements are later fulfilled. He maintained that the Speaker’s action was consistent with constitutional practice and parliamentary procedure, and that the inquiry committee was lawfully constituted to examine serious allegations of misconduct against a sitting judge.

The Supreme Court, while reserving its verdict, recalled its oral observations made a day earlier. On Wednesday, the bench had indicated that there appeared to be no express bar under the Judges (Inquiry) Act preventing the Lok Sabha Speaker from constituting an inquiry committee even if a similar motion had been rejected in the Rajya Sabha. These observations, however, were tentative, and the court made it clear that its final decision would be based on a detailed examination of the statutory framework and constitutional principles involved.

Justice Varma’s case has drawn wide attention due to the serious nature of the allegations and the unprecedented sequence of events that followed. The controversy began on March 14, when burnt wads of currency notes were reportedly found at Justice Varma’s official residence in New Delhi. In the wake of the incident, Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to his parent cadre, the Allahabad High Court, pending further action.

In response to the allegations, the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, initiated an in-house inquiry, a mechanism traditionally used within the judiciary to examine allegations of misconduct against judges. A three-member committee was constituted, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court.

The in-house committee conducted its inquiry and submitted its report on May 4. According to the findings, Justice Varma was found guilty of misconduct. Following established procedure, the report and Justice Varma’s response were forwarded by the Chief Justice of India to the President of India and the Prime Minister after Justice Varma declined to resign from office. This step effectively paved the way for the initiation of impeachment proceedings in Parliament.

Subsequently, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted a multi-party motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal on August 12. Following the admission of the motion, the Speaker constituted a three-member inquiry committee as mandated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. The committee comprises Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya.

Justice Varma has challenged not only the constitution of this committee but also the Speaker’s decision to admit the removal motion and all consequential notices issued to him by the inquiry panel. In his plea, he has argued that the entire process is unconstitutional, procedurally flawed, and in violation of statutory safeguards designed to protect judges from arbitrary or politically motivated action.

The Supreme Court had agreed to hear Justice Varma’s petition on December 16, issuing notices to the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Secretaries General of both Houses of Parliament. The court’s decision to entertain the plea underscored the importance of judicial scrutiny in matters involving the delicate balance between parliamentary authority and judicial independence.

The outcome of the case is expected to have far-reaching implications. It will clarify the scope of parliamentary powers in impeachment proceedings, the interpretation of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, and the procedural safeguards available to judges facing allegations of misconduct. The verdict will also shape future interactions between the judiciary and Parliament in matters involving accountability of constitutional functionaries.

As the Supreme Court deliberates on the issues raised, the case continues to highlight the complexity of balancing judicial independence with mechanisms of accountability. The reserved verdict is keenly awaited, as it will not only determine the fate of Justice Varma’s challenge but also set an important precedent for the constitutional process governing the removal of judges in India.