New Delhi, Jan 9, 2026: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, who is challenging the removal proceedings initiated against him in the Lok Sabha. The case highlights the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain between protecting the rights of a judge facing inquiry and respecting the will of Parliament, which represents the people.

Background of the Case

Justice Varma’s removal proceedings were triggered after unaccounted cash was discovered at his residence in Delhi while he served as a judge of the Delhi High Court. The incident came to light following a fire at his residence in March last year, during which currency notes were found in a sack. Following the discovery, the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, recommended action against Justice Varma to the Prime Minister and President of India.

On July 21, 2025, motions for the judge’s removal were introduced in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, citing “misbehaviour” as grounds under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion on August 12, 2025, and constituted a three-member inquiry committee to investigate the allegations. The committee subsequently called upon Justice Varma to respond to the memo of charges against him by January 12, 2026.

Justice Varma’s Petition

In his petition, Justice Varma challenged the procedural validity of the proceedings, arguing that under Section 3(2) of the 1968 Act, if a removal motion is presented in both Houses on the same day, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha must constitute a joint committee. Since this was not done, he alleged a procedural flawthat could nullify the removal proceedings.

Justice Varma’s legal team, led by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Agarwal, and Jayant Mehta, raised additional concerns about the handling of the motion in the Rajya Sabha. They noted that the Rajya Sabha Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, resigned on July 21, 2025, and the Deputy Chairman refused to admit the motion on August 11, calling it “defective.” The petition argued that the Deputy Chairman could not exercise the Chairman’s powers at that time, and the process should have awaited the appointment of a new Vice-President.

Supreme Court Observations

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized the court’s responsibility to balance the rights of the judge and the will of Parliament, which represents the people. The bench highlighted that indefinite delays in addressing misconduct or incapacity among judges could be detrimental to the judicial system. The court noted, “If a judge is physically incapacitated or unable to perform duties, why should the nation continue to bear their salary?”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both Houses of Parliament, argued that the Deputy Chairman’s order had not been challenged by any Rajya Sabha member and that the inquiry committee had already achieved its purpose. Mehta cautioned that judicial interference at this stage could truncate the process, forcing it to restart unnecessarily. He also referred to Article 91 of the Constitution, which allows the Deputy Chairman to step into the Chairman’s role during a vacancy or absence.

Current Status

The inquiry committee has asked Justice Varma to submit his response to the charges by January 12, 2026. The Supreme Court, however, refused to extend the deadline, signaling that it would not intervene in the committee’s ongoing proceedings. The bench reserved its order on the petition, which is expected to determine whether the procedural challenges raised by Justice Varma have merit.

This case has drawn significant attention as it underscores the complex interplay between judicial independence and parliamentary oversight. It also raises important questions about accountability and procedural safeguards when investigating allegations of misconduct against sitting judges.

Key Issues Highlighted

1. Unaccounted Cash Discovery: The trigger for the removal proceedings stemmed from a fire at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence in March last year, where currency notes were found.
2. Dual Motion in Parliament: Both Houses received motions for removal on July 21, 2025. The failure to constitute a joint committee raised procedural questions.
3. Role of Deputy Chairman: The refusal of the Deputy Chairman to admit the motion in the Rajya Sabha became a focal point, with arguments about whether he had authority in the absence of the Chairman.
4. Judicial Oversight vs Parliamentary Authority: The Supreme Court is tasked with ensuring due process for the judge while respecting the will of Parliament, which represents the public interest.
5. Deadline for Response: Justice Varma has been asked to respond to the committee by January 12, 2026, and the court has chosen not to interfere with this timeline.

The case is poised to become a landmark in the law governing judicial accountability, potentially shaping how allegations against judges are investigated while safeguarding constitutional principles.