In a setback to Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, the Supreme Court has rejected his petition challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit a motion seeking his removal and to constitute an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The top court’s refusal to entertain the plea clears the way for the statutory inquiry process to continue, keeping the judge under an institutional cloud and sharpening the spotlight on judicial accountability mechanisms.
Justice Varma had approached the Supreme Court questioning the Speaker’s decision to admit the motion, the first formal step under the impeachment framework and the consequential formation of an inquiry committee meant to examine the allegations levelled against him.
However, the Supreme Court has now made it clear that it will not intervene at this stage, signalling judicial reluctance to derail the constitutional and statutory process once Parliament has initiated proceedings.
What Justice Varma challenged
At the heart of Justice Varma’s petition was a challenge to the Speaker’s discretion and authority in admitting the motion and triggering the inquiry mechanism under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Under the constitutional scheme, a judge of the higher judiciary can be removed only by a special majority in Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act lays down the procedural pathway beginning with a notice/motion backed by the required number of MPs, followed by the Speaker’s decision on whether to admit it.
Once the Speaker admits the motion, the law contemplates the formation of a three-member inquiry committee to investigate the allegations.
Justice Varma’s attempt was essentially aimed at stopping this inquiry from being constituted or continuing.
Why the Supreme Court’s refusal matters
The Supreme Court’s rejection does not amount to a declaration on guilt or innocence. Instead, it is a procedural and institutional decision, the court is declining to interrupt Parliament’s jurisdiction once the motion has been admitted. This is a crucial point.
The judiciary is often cautious about being seen as interfering with legislative processes, particularly those rooted in constitutional functions like impeachment.
While courts can, in rare circumstances, test procedural legality or constitutional boundaries, the refusal here suggests the bench found no ground to stall the Speaker-led process at this preliminary stage.
For Justice Varma personally, the immediate consequence is stark: the inquiry will proceed, and his effort to secure an early judicial shield has failed.
With the Supreme Court stepping aside, Justice Varma’s defence now shifts almost entirely to the inquiry committee. That forum will examine the factual foundation of the allegations, and the judge will have to respond in detail, through legal representation and documentary evidence.
This makes the committee phase decisive. If the committee exonerates him, the impeachment motion is likely to lose momentum. If it holds the charges proved, Parliament’s final step, debate and voting becomes politically and institutionally far more probable.
Now, the pressure to step aside increases
Although the law does not automatically suspend a judge when a motion is admitted, the continuation of proceedings increases pressure both from within the system and from public discourse for the judge to refrain from judicial work until clarity emerges.
This is often done informally to protect the credibility of ongoing adjudication and prevent allegations from affecting court functioning.
With the Supreme Court rejecting the plea, the likely next steps are:
- Formal constitution/continuation of the inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
- Framing of charges and submission of Justice Varma’s defence
- Recording of evidence and hearings
- Committee report with findings
If charges are proved, Parliament may take up the motion for final debate and voting.