New Delhi: Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday challenged before the Supreme Court the constitution of an inquiry committee formed by the Lok Sabha Speaker to investigate corruption allegations against him, contending that the move was legally flawed and unconstitutional.
Represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Justice Varma argued that the procedure followed violated the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, as well as Article 124(5) of the Constitution. Appearing before a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, Rohatgi submitted that impeachment motions against Justice Varma were moved simultaneously in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on July 21, 2025. Under such circumstances, he said, the law mandates that an inquiry committee can only be constituted jointly by both Houses, and only if the motions are admitted in each.
Rohatgi pointed out that while the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion and constituted a three-member inquiry committee, the corresponding motion in the Rajya Sabha was later rejected by the Deputy Chairman. He contended that once one House declined to proceed, the committee formed thereafter had no legal existence and was “non est” in law. He also questioned the rejection of the Rajya Sabha motion, noting that it had earlier been admitted by the Chairperson of the Upper House.
The senior counsel maintained that the statutory scheme does not permit one House of Parliament to proceed independently when impeachment motions are initiated on the same day in both Houses. According to him, the law envisages a joint process, and failure of admission in both Houses renders the entire exercise invalid.
The Bench, however, raised queries on whether rejection of a motion in one House automatically nullifies proceedings in the other. Justice Datta observed that the Judges (Inquiry) Act does not explicitly prohibit the Lok Sabha from appointing a committee if the Rajya Sabha rejects a similar motion. In response, Rohatgi reiterated that the moment two valid motions are moved simultaneously, the process must follow a joint route, and any unilateral action would be contrary to the Act.
The court was informed that the Rajya Sabha motion was rejected on August 11, 2025, while the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted the inquiry committee on August 12. Justice Varma has sought quashing of the Speaker’s decision, the admission of the removal motion, and all subsequent notices issued by the committee.
The case stems from allegations of misconduct after burnt currency notes were reportedly found at Justice Varma’s official residence in New Delhi on March 14. He was later repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court. An earlier in-house inquiry ordered by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, conducted by a three-member panel of senior judges, found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct. After he declined to resign, the report and his response were forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister, triggering impeachment proceedings.
The Supreme Court had agreed in December to hear Justice Varma’s challenge to the inquiry committee and issued notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Secretaries-General of both Houses of Parliament. The hearing in the matter is continuing.
