New Delhi, Jan 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to form an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The panel was set up in connection with an impeachment motion against him following the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma.
The verdict had been reserved on January 8 after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma, and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
Justice Varma had assailed the constitution of the inquiry committee on the ground that impeachment notices were moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day, July 21, and yet the Lok Sabha Speaker proceeded to constitute the committee unilaterally, without awaiting the decision of the Rajya Sabha Chairman or undertaking the mandatory joint consultation.
The petition contended that the procedure adopted was contrary to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Reliance was placed on the proviso to Section 3(2), which stipulates that where notices of a motion are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no committee shall be constituted unless the motion is admitted in both Houses, and if admitted, the committee must be constituted jointly by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
On July 21, 2025, separate motions seeking the impeachment of Justice Varma were introduced in both Houses of Parliament.
On the same day, the then Rajya Sabha Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, tendered his resignation. Subsequently, on August 11, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected the motion moved in the Upper House.
A day later, on August 12, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla announced the constitution of an inquiry committee comprising Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court, Justice M.M. Srivastava, a serving Chief Justice of a High Court, and Senior Advocate B.V. Acharya.
During the hearing, Rohatgi argued that since the motions were moved simultaneously in both Houses, the inquiry committee could only have been constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman, and that the Deputy Chairman lacked the authority to reject the Rajya Sabha motion.
The Solicitor General, however, submitted that the committee was formed only after the Rajya Sabha motion had been rejected.
The Bench observed that the Deputy Chairman was competent to exercise the functions of the Chairman in his absence.
It also queried the nature of prejudice caused to Justice Varma, even assuming there was some procedural infirmity in the constitution of the committee.
The detailed reasons for the dismissal will be available once the judgment is uploaded.
