New Delhi, January 9, 2026 – The Rajya Sabha secretary general, PC Mody, has raised serious concerns regarding the Opposition’s notice seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, highlighting multiple legal, procedural, and factual infirmities that, in his assessment, rendered the motion “not in order” and “non est” (nonexistent). These observations were formally submitted to the Supreme Court as part of the ongoing judicial review of Justice Varma’s petition challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit a motion for his impeachment.

The issue has come under the apex court’s scrutiny after Justice Varma questioned the constitutionality of the Speaker admitting a motion on August 12, 2025, despite a prior notice moved in the Rajya Sabha. The Supreme Court, hearing the matter, reserved its judgment on Thursday, reflecting the significance of the procedural and constitutional questions involved.

Rajya Sabha Opinion Points Out Major Deficiencies

In a detailed opinion dated August 11, 2025, submitted to Deputy Chairperson Harivansh, Mody observed that the notice filed by 63 Rajya Sabha MPs displayed a “casual and cavalier approach” to what he described as an “extremely serious matter.” The secretary general also communicated the same to Lok Sabha secretary general Utpal Kumar Singh, formally noting that the Rajya Sabha motion had not been admitted.

While the notice met the numerical threshold specified under Section 3(1)(b) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, Mody noted that it suffered from multiple deficiencies undermining its admissibility:

1. Incorrect Invocation of Law: The notice erroneously sought admission “in the House,” whereas the discretion to admit motions lies solely with the Speaker or Chairman. Invoking the wrong statutory provision, Mody noted, reflected a “casual and cavalier approach” incompatible with the gravity of initiating removal proceedings against a constitutional court judge.
2. Absence of Supporting Material: The notice cited reports, including the in-house inquiry panel findings concerning unaccounted cash discovered at Justice Varma’s official residence. However, no authenticated copies were annexed for the Chairman’s consideration, leaving the factual basis unverified.
3. Factual Inaccuracies: The notice claimed that a spot inspection of Justice Varma’s residence occurred on March 3, 2025, which preceded the actual fire incident on the night of March 14, 2025. These inconsistencies, Mody noted, went to the root of admissibility.
4. Misunderstanding of Parliamentary Role: Mody emphasized that Parliament only becomes involved after an inquiry committee submits its report, distinguishing between Sections 3 and 4 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Admission of a motion is an administrative act of the presiding officer to ensure procedural compliance, not a decision by the House collectively. Allowing otherwise, he warned, would render the Speaker’s or Chairman’s powers redundant.

Deputy Chairperson and Lok Sabha Secretariat Support

Based on Mody’s observations, Deputy Chairperson Harivansh concluded that the Rajya Sabha notice was “not in order”and formally rejected it. Mody communicated this decision to the Lok Sabha secretary general on August 11, reiterating deficiencies in drafting, lack of supporting evidence, legal errors, and factual inconsistencies. The Chairman had thus administratively determined that the motion was non est.

The communications now form a key part of the Speaker’s defense before the Supreme Court, which argues that, since the Rajya Sabha motion was never admitted, the Speaker was legally competent to admit the Lok Sabha motion on August 12, 2025, and constitute a three-member inquiry committee headed by a Supreme Court judge.

Justice Varma Challenges Procedure

Justice Varma, however, contends that motions were moved in both Houses on July 21, 2025. He asserts that under Section 3(2) of the 1968 Act, a joint committee should have been formed by the Speaker and Chairman, a step bypassed by the Lok Sabha Speaker. This clash of interpretations has been central to Supreme Court hearings, with Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma emphasizing the need to balance the rights of the judge with the parliamentary will.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Parliament, argued that no Rajya Sabha member challenged the rejection of the motion and that even Justice Varma did not assail it, as the rejection operated in his favor. He cautioned that interference at this stage could derail the constitutionally sanctioned accountability mechanism.

Background of Impeachment Proceedings

The proceedings stem from the discovery of large amounts of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi following a fire in March 2025, when he served as a Delhi High Court judge. An in-house inquiry found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action to the President and Prime Minister.

The inquiry committee appointed by the Lok Sabha Speaker includes Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, and senior advocate BV Acharya. Justice Varma has been asked to submit his written response by January 12 and to appear before the panel on January 24.

Significance

This case underscores the complexity of judicial impeachment in India, where parliamentary procedures, statutory interpretation, and constitutional safeguards intersect. The Supreme Court’s judgment is expected to clarify admissibility requirements, the scope of presiding officers’ discretion, and procedural safeguards for judges facing removal proceedings, setting a precedent for future impeachment motions.