The impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma have entered a delicate constitutional phase, with the Supreme Court acknowledging some infirmity in the manner in which the inquiry committee was constituted, even as Parliament has told the apex court that the judge’s challenge rests on an incorrect factual foundation and caused him no legal prejudice whatsoever.
The clash now unfolding before the Supreme Court is less about the sensational cash-haul allegations that triggered the crisis, and more about procedure, statutory interpretation and the limits of judicial intervention in parliamentary affairs.
Justice Varma has approached the court seeking to quash the impeachment inquiry committee formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, arguing that the committee itself was illegally constituted. His case rests on a narrow but consequential point: impeachment motions against him were moved in both Houses of Parliament on the same day in July 2025, and therefore, under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act, any inquiry committee could only be constituted jointly by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman and only if both Houses admitted the motion.
That, he claims, never happened.
During today’s hearing, a Supreme Court bench observed that there appeared to be some infirmity in how the committee came to be formed, but stopped short of concluding whether that infirmity was grave enough to vitiate the entire impeachment process. “We will see if it is serious enough,” the court remarked, signalling that procedural irregularity alone may not be sufficient unless it causes demonstrable prejudice.
In a detailed affidavit filed by the Lok Sabha Secretary General, the Union legislature has argued that Justice Varma’s petition is built on an incorrect factual premise. According to the affidavit, the impeachment motion moved in the Rajya Sabha was never admitted at all. On August 11, 2025, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, acting in the absence of Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, passed a written order rejecting the motion.
That decision, the affidavit emphasises, was never challenged by any Member of Parliament and has therefore attained finality.
Once the Rajya Sabha motion stood rejected, the Lok Sabha contends, there was no statutory requirement for a joint committee. The only surviving motion was the one admitted in the Lok Sabha, empowering the Speaker to independently constitute an inquiry committee under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
“No prejudice was caused to Justice Varma by the constitution of the committee,” the affidavit states, adding that the Supreme Court cannot ordinarily sit in judgment over proceedings in Parliament, a constitutional sphere protected by long-standing precedent.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma, has contested this interpretation before the Court. He argues that when motions are moved in both Houses on the same day, the statute contemplates only two outcomes: either both Houses admit the motion and a joint committee is formed, or no committee can be constituted at all.
“The proviso contemplates one situation,” Rohatgi submitted. “If motions are moved on the same day, both Houses must admit them. In my case, one motion was rejected. Therefore, no committee could have been formed.”
He has also questioned the authority of the Deputy Chairman to reject the Rajya Sabha motion, arguing that the act amounted to an impermissible review rather than a routine admission exercise. The Solicitor General, however, countered that the Chairman or a Deputy acting in that capacity is entitled to scrutinise whether a motion meets statutory requirements before admitting it.
The cash haul that triggered accountability
The legal battle over procedure cannot be divorced from the extraordinary facts that set it in motion.
On March 14, 2025, a fire broke out in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. Fire and police personnel reportedly found half-burnt stacks of ₹500 notes at the site, footage that soon circulated publicly and was later authenticated
A Supreme Court-appointed three-judge in-house panel examined the incident in depth, recording evidence from 55 witnesses over 10 days. The panel concluded that Justice Varma and/or his family exercised covert or active control over the storeroom, and noted that the cash was removed in the early hours of March 15, allegedly with the involvement of his staff. The misconduct, the panel said, was grave enough to warrant impeachment.
Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna forwarded the panel’s recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister, triggering parliamentary action.
Justice Varma has consistently denied any involvement, claiming the storeroom was a common area accessible to staff and describing the allegations as a conspiracy. He has also alleged procedural lapses at every stage of the inquiry.
In August, the Supreme Court rejected his challenge to the in-house inquiry report, holding that his conduct did not inspire confidence and declining to interfere with the recommendation for removal.
