New Delhi | Jan 16, 2026

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit a motion seeking his removal following the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi last year. The verdict clears the path for the three-member parliamentary inquiry committee constituted by the Speaker to proceed with its investigation.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma categorically rejected Varma’s contentions that a joint committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, was mandatory, and that the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha lacked authority to decline admission of a parallel motion in the Upper House. “We hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present case,” Justice Datta read out from the operative part of the judgment.

The controversy arose after cash was allegedly recovered from Varma’s residence following a fire in March 2025, when he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge. A Supreme Court in-house panel subsequently found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action to the Prime Minister and the President.

Notices for his removal were moved in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on July 21, 2025. While the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion on August 12 and constituted a three-member inquiry committee, the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman declined to admit the motion, citing procedural defects. Varma argued that the law required a joint committee if motions were presented in both Houses on the same day.

The Lok Sabha secretariat and the Centre countered that the Rajya Sabha motion was never legally admitted, leaving the Speaker fully competent to act independently. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta added that no Rajya Sabha member had challenged the deputy chairman’s decision, and judicial interference at this stage could undermine a constitutionally sanctioned accountability mechanism.

The bench also noted that stopping the process because of the absence of a Rajya Sabha chairman could paralyse judicial accountability in emergent situations. Varma’s legal team argued that the deputy chairman lacked the power to reject the motion, potentially creating conflicts of interest.

The inquiry panel, comprising Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, and senior advocate BV Acharya, will now continue its probe. Varma has submitted his response disputing the allegations and is scheduled to appear before the committee on January 24.