The Supreme Court, on Thursday, reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who sought to quash the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute a three-member inquiry committee to examine allegations of misconduct against him under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, a process that could culminate in his impeachment.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma reserved judgment after hearing marathon arguments from both sides on the constitutional and procedural contours of judicial impeachment.
The Court also declined Justice Varma’s request for more time to respond to the inquiry committee and to defer his personal appearance before it. The committee, constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, had already extended the deadline for Justice Varma’s written response once from November 2025 to January 12, 2026, and directed him to appear in person on January 24.
With the date drawing close, Justice Varma’s counsel urged the Court to grant one more extension. “The date to appear before the committee is approaching. I was earlier granted one extension,” senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal submitted.
The bench, however, was unmoved. “You appear. File your written submissions by Monday. Judgment reserved,” the court said tersely, signalling that it was unwilling to stall a statutory process already set in motion by Parliament.
The spark: A fire and its fallout
The controversy traces its origin to a fire that broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence on March 14, 2025. Firefighters responding to the blaze allegedly recovered large amounts of unaccounted cash from the premises, a discovery that quickly escalated into allegations of corruption and misbehaviour against the sitting judge.
Justice Varma has consistently denied the allegations. Nonetheless, the fallout was swift and severe. He was transferred from the Delhi High Court to his parent High Court in Allahabad and stripped of judicial work while the matter was examined internally.
An in-house inquiry was initiated under the supervision of then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, who eventually asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. Justice Varma refused to step down, setting the stage for parliamentary action.
In August 2025, the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted a motion moved by Members of Parliament, seeking Justice Varma’s removal and constituted a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. It was this decision that Justice Varma challenged before the Supreme Court.
The core legal battle
Justice Varma’s challenge rests on a narrow but significant procedural question: whether the Lok Sabha Speaker could unilaterally constitute an inquiry committee when impeachment notices had also been submitted in the Rajya Sabha.
His counsel argued that the proviso to Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act contemplates a joint consultation between the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman when impeachment motions are moved in both Houses. According to Justice Varma, the Speaker acted prematurely and without jurisdiction by proceeding alone.
Parliament, however, painted a very different picture. The Lok Sabha Secretary General told the Court that the Rajya Sabha impeachment motion had not been admitted at all. After the resignation of then Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar in July 2025, the motion was rejected on August 11 by the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman. Since there was no admitted motion in the Upper House, the proviso, Parliament argued, simply did not apply.
On Wednesday, the Bench had already indicated scepticism toward the idea that impeachment proceedings must collapse merely because the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected a notice. On Thursday, that line of questioning sharpened.
Deputy chairman’s powers under scrutiny
Senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma, attacked the role played by the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman. They argued that the deputy chairman lacked constitutional authority to act on an impeachment motion and should have waited for a new chairman to assume office.
When the court asked whether Article 91 of the Constitution, which allows the deputy chairman to exercise the Chairman’s powers in his absence, was excluded from impeachment proceedings under Article 124(5), Luthra replied that the matter could simply have waited.
Rohatgi went further, warning that allowing a deputy chairman, who is also a member of the House, to decide on impeachment notices would undermine the neutrality the Constitution expects in such grave proceedings. “The chairman is completely non-partisan. The deputy chairman is not. Applying Article 91 here leads to a conflict of interest,” he argued.
Rohatgi also took aim at a note prepared by the Lok Sabha secretary general, accusing him of writing a judgment-like report without authority. Referring to the fire incident, he argued that the allegations stemmed from a one-time event and had caused irreparable damage to Justice Varma’s reputation.
Parliament pushes back
Appearing for both Houses of Parliament, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the procedure adopted. Excluding the deputy chairman from acting during a vacancy, he argued, would paralyse Parliament’s functioning and defeat the purpose of the law.
“Admission is not automatic,” Mehta said, rejecting the suggestion that the Rajya Sabha had “impliedly” admitted the impeachment motion. “The Speaker or the Chairman has to apply his mind. He can admit or refuse.”
Mehta also clarified that the requirement of joint consultation exists to prevent duplication, not to create a veto. The intent, he said, is to ensure that two separate committees are not constituted simultaneously by the two Houses.
Emphasising the safeguards built into the law, Mehta told the Court that the impeachment framework carefully balances the public’s right to know with a judge’s right to dignity. Even the findings of an inquiry committee, he pointed out, remain confidential unless a majority agrees that misconduct is proved.
As the Court reserved its verdict, Justice Varma now faces an uncertain few weeks required to submit to the inquiry process, even as the Supreme Court weighs whether that very process was constitutionally sound.
