New Delhi | Jan 16, 2026

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, challenging the legality of a parliamentary panel probing corruption charges against him and the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit a motion seeking his removal.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma, which had reserved its verdict on January 8, pronounced the order, effectively allowing the ongoing parliamentary proceedings against Justice Varma to continue.

The court rejected arguments questioning the authority of the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman to exercise certain functions in the chairman’s absence, drawing a parallel with the vice president of India who can act in place of the president when required. The bench pointed out that there is no legal bar preventing the Deputy Chairman or parliamentary committees from performing such functions, including overseeing inquiries into judges.

Justice Varma had been repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt wads of currency notes were found at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14, 2025, triggering serious allegations of misconduct. Subsequently, the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, initiated an in-house inquiry, constituting a three-member committee comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman.

The committee submitted its report on May 4, 2025, concluding that Justice Varma was guilty of misconduct. After he declined to resign voluntarily, the report and the judge’s response were forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister, paving the way for potential impeachment proceedings.

On August 12, 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted a multi-party motion for Justice Varma’s removal and constituted a three-member inquiry committee consisting of Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B V Acharya to investigate the allegations.

In his petition, Justice Varma had sought to quash the Speaker’s action, the admission of the motion, and all notices issued by the inquiry committee, claiming that the entire process was unconstitutional and violated the Judges Act of 1968. The Supreme Court, however, held that the parliamentary procedure and formation of the inquiry committee were legally valid, allowing the parliamentary investigation into Justice Varma’s conduct to proceed.

The verdict underscores the authority of parliamentary mechanisms in judicial accountability, reaffirming the power of the Lok Sabha Speaker and associated committees to investigate allegations of misconduct against sitting judges.

---