New Delhi: Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday moved the Supreme Courtopposing the formation of a three-member inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker to probe alleged corruption charges against him.
Represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Justice Varma argued that the procedure followed violates the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the Constitution.
Key Arguments by Justice Varma
- Joint Committee Required if Motions Moved in Both Houses
- Rohatgi told a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma that if removal motions are moved simultaneously in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the same day, the inquiry committee must be jointly formed by both Houses.
- In the present case, the motion was rejected in the Rajya Sabha, and the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted the committee unilaterally, making it “non est in law” (not legally valid).
- Challenge to Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson’s Decision
- Rohatgi also criticized the Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha for rejecting a motion that had earlier been admitted by the Chairperson.
- He questioned whether the Speaker of the Lok Sabha could independently constitute a committee when motions were initiated in both Houses on the same day.
- Violation of Mandatory Procedure under Article 124
- The senior advocate emphasized that Parliament must strictly follow the Judges (Inquiry) Act for removing a judge:
- A motion must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
- Once admitted, a committee is constituted for inquiry, followed by a House debate.
- Since motions were moved simultaneously on July 21, 2025, but not admitted in both Houses, the unilateral committee formed by the Lok Sabha violates law.
- The senior advocate emphasized that Parliament must strictly follow the Judges (Inquiry) Act for removing a judge:
- Sequence of Events Cited
- Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the motion on August 11, 2025.
- Lok Sabha Speaker constituted the three-member inquiry committee on August 12, 2025, comprising:
- Justice Aravind Kumar (Supreme Court)
- Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (Madras High Court)
- Senior Advocate B.V. Acharya
Supreme Court’s Observations
- The bench questioned whether rejection in one House automatically invalidates proceedings in the other House.
- Justice Datta asked, “Where is the bar under the proviso for the Lok Sabha to appoint a committee if the Rajya Sabha rejects the motion?”
- Rohatgi countered, arguing that when motions are moved on the same day, a joint process is mandatory, and if both are not admitted, the entire process is invalid.
Background of the Case
- Justice Varma was transferred back to the Allahabad High Court after burnt currency notes were discovered at his New Delhi residence on March 14, 2025.
- An in-house inquiry was initially conducted by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, forming a three-member panel comprising:
- Punjab & Haryana HC Chief Justice Sheel Nagu
- Himachal Pradesh HC Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
- Karnataka HC Justice Anu Sivaraman
- The committee submitted its report on May 4, 2025, finding Justice Varma guilty of misconduct.
- After Justice Varma declined to resign, the report was forwarded to the President and Prime Minister, triggering impeachment proceedings.
- Subsequently, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted the multi-party motion on August 12, 2025 and constituted the current inquiry committee.
Relief Sought
Justice Varma has requested the Supreme Court to:
- Quash the Speaker’s action,
- Invalidate the admission of the Lok Sabha motion, and
- Cancel all consequential notices issued by the inquiry committee,
arguing that the entire process is unconstitutional and contrary to the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
The hearing in the Supreme Court is currently ongoing.
Leave a Reply