Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute a three-member committee to probe allegations against him under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, arguing that the move violated the statutory procedure for initiating impeachment.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih issued a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, as well as the secretariats of both houses of Parliament, the Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha, on Justice Varma’s plea.
During the hearing, the court appeared prima facie persuaded by the procedural objection raised by the judge, and questioned how the Parliament’s legal advisors had allowed the process to unfold in the manner alleged.
“So many MPs and legal experts, but no one pointed this out?” Justice Datta remarked, referring to the statutory requirement of coordination between the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha when impeachment notices are moved in both Houses.
Justice Varma has assailed the Speaker’s August 2025 decision to constitute an inquiry committee despite the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha not having been admitted at that stage.
According to the plea, while notices for impeachment were submitted in both Houses, the Speaker acted unilaterally without awaiting admission of the Rajya Sabha motion or engaging in the joint consultation envisaged under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
“The Hon’ble Speaker has acted in clear derogation of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, by unilaterally constituting a Committee on 12.08.2025 after admitting a motion given before the Lok Sabha on 21.07.2025, when on the very same day, a separate motion was given in the Rajya Sabha, which had not been admitted,” the petition states.
The controversy stems from allegations of corruption against Justice Varma following a fire at his official residence in Delhi on March 14 this year. Firefighters responding to the blaze allegedly recovered bundles of unaccounted cash from the premises, visuals of which later surfaced and circulated widely.
Justice Varma and his wife were not in Delhi at the time and were travelling in Madhya Pradesh; only his daughter and elderly mother were present at home. Justice Varma has consistently denied the allegations, claiming that the episode was part of a conspiracy to frame him.
The then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry on March 22, constituting a three-member committee of sitting High Court judges—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 commenced its probe on March 25 and submitted its report to the CJI on May 4.
On August 7, the Supreme Court dismissed Justice Varma’s earlier challenge to the in-house inquiry report and the CJI’s recommendation for his removal. The present petition, however, targets the subsequent parliamentary process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
In August, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla formally initiated impeachment proceedings by admitting a motion signed by 146 Members of Parliament and constituting a three-member committee to investigate the allegations. The committee comprises Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B. Vasudeva Acharya.
Under Articles 124(4) and 218 of the Constitution, a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court can be removed only through impeachment, requiring adoption of a motion by each House of Parliament with a special majority, followed by an order of the President.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act lays down the procedure for investigating allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity through a committee constituted by the Speaker or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, as the case may be.
Justice Varma’s case raises a narrow but significant procedural question: whether, when impeachment notices are pending in both Houses, the Speaker can proceed independently without the Rajya Sabha Chairman admitting the motion or without joint consultation.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this point could have broader implications for the mechanics of judicial impeachment and the delicate balance between constitutional offices.