The Supreme Court said there is no bar under the Judges Inquiry Act on the Lok Sabha Speaker constituting an inquiry committee even if a similar motion is rejected by the Rajya Sabha.
The case centres on impeachment motions moved in both Houses on the same day and allegations against Justice Varma following the recovery of half-burnt cash at his residence.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally observed that there was no bar under the Judges Inquiry Act on Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituting an inquiry committee to examine corruption allegations against Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, even though a similar motion had been rejected in the Rajya Sabha.
Expressing a prima facie view, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said it was not persuaded by the submissions of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma, that the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha lacked the authority to reject the motion after the resignation of chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar.
At the same time, the court noted that there appeared to be “some infirmity” in the manner in which the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted the inquiry panel, and said it would examine whether the defect was serious enough to justify terminating the proceedings.
Rohatgi opposed the constitution of the inquiry committee at the outset, arguing that when impeachment motions are moved simultaneously in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, any inquiry panel must be formed jointly by the two Houses.
“Prima facie let us be clear that we are not with Rohatgi on (point) one and two (setting up of the inquiry panel and the action of Deputy Chairperson of Rajya Sabha to reject the motion)... We have to only see if we should intervene under Article 32 to see if the person (Justice Varma) should have got the benefit of the joint committee (of both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha)...,” Justice Datta said.
The bench was hearing Justice Varma’s petition challenging the legality of the parliamentary panel constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to probe allegations arising from the discovery of unaccounted, half-burnt currency notes at his residence.
Rohatgi relied on the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act, which states: "Provided that where notices of a motion referred to in sub-section (1) are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman." The bench, however, observed that the Act does not expressly provide that rejection of a motion by one House bars the other from proceeding.
“Where is the bar under the proviso for the Lok Sabha to appoint a committee if the Rajya Sabha rejects the motion?” Justice Datta asked.
"If one house has rejected a motion, then where is the bar on the Lok Sabha in constituting the Committee,” he said again.
Justice Datta noted that the proviso is silent on whether rejection of the motion in the Rajya Sabha would prevent the Lok Sabha from moving forward. "We have to read the silence in the provision purposively," he added.
The bench observed that if the Rajya Sabha had also admitted the motion, Justice Varma would have received the benefit of a joint committee. However, it questioned whether the absence of such a committee was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant intervention under Article 32, and listed the matter for further hearing on Thursday.
Rohatgi also challenged the decision of the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha to reject the motion, which he said had earlier been admitted by the chairperson of the Upper House. He argued that the key issue was whether the Lok Sabha Speaker could unilaterally constitute an inquiry committee when removal motions were initiated in both Houses on the same day but admitted in only one.
He maintained that Parliament must strictly follow the procedure prescribed under the Act for the removal of a judge, which requires a motion signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. Once admitted, such a motion triggers the constitution of a committee to conduct an inquiry, followed by debate in the House.
Emphasising the timeline, Rohatgi said impeachment motions against Justice Varma were moved in both Houses on July 21, 2025. Under the Act, he argued, when notices are given in both Houses on the same day, no committee can be formed unless both motions are admitted, in which case a joint committee must be constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
“In the present case, one motion was rejected. Therefore, the committee constituted thereafter is non est in law,” Rohatgi said.
He further argued that the deputy chairperson could only preside over proceedings in the absence of the chairperson, and not exercise broader powers. Justice Datta disagreed, pointing out that following the chairperson’s resignation, the deputy chairperson would automatically step in. When Rohatgi insisted that this role was limited to chairing proceedings, Justice Datta responded that the deputy could perform “the duties of the office of the Chairman”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Rajya Sabha chairperson had merely stated that the motion had been received, and that there was no express order admitting it.
Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt bundles of currency notes were recovered from his official residence in New Delhi on March 14.
(with PTI inputs)
