The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed skepticism about the argument that an impeachment motion admitted in the Lok Sabha against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma must automatically be treated as unsuccessful merely because a similar motion introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the same day was turned down.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing Justice Varma’s petition seeking to set aside the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to form a three-member inquiry panel under the Judges (Inquiry) Act in connection with the impeachment process.
Justice Varma has assailed the Speaker’s action on procedural grounds. He pointed out that although impeachment notices were submitted in both Houses of Parliament, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla went ahead and constituted the inquiry committee without waiting to see whether the Rajya Sabha Chairman would also admit the motion.
His lawyers argued that the proviso to Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act requires joint consultation between the presiding officers of both Houses when notices are filed in each House on the same day, and that a committee can only be set up after such consultation and after admission in both Houses.
The Lok Sabha Secretary General, however, stated that the Rajya Sabha did not admit the motion, and therefore the proviso dealing with joint consultation did not come into play.
Appearing for Justice Varma, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi contended that the procedure followed was flawed and invalidated the inquiry process initiated by the Speaker. He submitted that the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the motion on August 11, 2025, while the motion had originally been moved on July 21. According to Rohatgi, the Rajya Sabha Chairman had resigned later that same day in July, and the Deputy Chairman subsequently rejected the motion weeks later.
Justice Datta then posed a question: if an impeachment motion in one House is rejected, is there any legal prohibition preventing the Speaker of the other House from forming an inquiry committee when its own motion is admitted? The Bench observed that a joint committee is mandated only where both Houses have admitted the motion.
The Court asked why the motion in one House should fail simply because the other House refused to admit it, noting that the proviso merely states that a joint committee cannot be created unless both Houses admit the motion. Where one House rejects the motion, the statute is silent — and therefore must be interpreted in light of legislative intent, the Bench remarked.
Justice Datta further stated that he was not inclined, at first glance, to accept Rohatgi’s claim that the Lok Sabha motion collapses if the Rajya Sabha rejects an identical motion.
The proceedings then focused on whether the Rajya Sabha motion had actually been admitted. Rohatgi argued that the Chairman had acknowledged receipt of the motion and indicated that proceedings under Section 3 had commenced, which, he said, amounted to implied admission. He also questioned whether the Deputy Chairman could overturn or revisit the Chairman’s decision.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed this view, submitting that the Chairman had consciously refrained from either admitting or rejecting the motion and merely sought information as to whether a similar motion had been moved in the Lok Sabha.
The Supreme Court stated that it would continue hearing the case the next day to determine whether Justice Varma was deprived of the benefit of joint consultation between the two presiding officers before the inquiry committee was established, and whether intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution was warranted.
The Court also voiced concerns about certain communications referred to by the Solicitor General, observing that while something appeared irregular in the secretary general’s note, it remained to be seen whether the defect justified judicial interference.
The impeachment proceedings stem from allegations of corruption following a fire at Justice Varma’s residence on March 14, 2025, during which unaccounted cash was reportedly discovered. Justice Varma has denied the accusations. An in-house committee constituted by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna submitted its report on May 4, 2024, after which Justice Varma was asked to resign or face impeachment. Upon his refusal, the matter was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister.
Justice Varma was subsequently repatriated to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court, and his judicial work was withdrawn pending further action. In August 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed his earlier challenge to the in-house committee report and the recommendation for his removal.
Later that month, the Lok Sabha Speaker formally began the impeachment process. After Members of Parliament submitted the motion, the Speaker admitted it and constituted a three-member panel consisting of two judges and a senior advocate. The committee sought Justice Varma’s written response in November 2025. While the original deadline has expired, it has now been extended until January 12, 2026, and he has been summoned to appear before the committee on January 24.
A team led by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, along with several other senior lawyers, represented Justice Varma before the Supreme Court.
