The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Secretariats of both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who has questioned the legality of the impeachment process initiated against him under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, by the Lower House.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih indicated prima facie reservations about the manner in which the process had been set in motion, particularly the unilateral constitution of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
“So many MPs and legal experts, but no one pointed this out?” Justice Datta remarked during the hearing, expressing surprise over the procedural lapse highlighted in the petition.
The Court issued notice to the Speaker as well as the Secretariats of both Houses of Parliament and indicated that the matter would be taken up for further hearing in the first week of January.
Justice Varma has challenged the August 12, 2025 decision of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to constitute a three-member inquiry committee, arguing that the Speaker proceeded without waiting for the admission of a similar impeachment motion pending before the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
According to the petition, once impeachment notices are moved simultaneously in both the Houses, neither presiding officer can act independently. Justice Varma has relied on the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to contend that the Speaker’s action was legally impermissible.
“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, as on the very same day a separate motion was given in the Rajya Sabha which had not been admitted,” the petition states.
The proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, reads:
“Provided where notices of a motion referred to in sub-section (1) are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman.”
Section 3(1)(a) and Section 3(1)(b) of the Act require that for moving an impeachment motion, it should be supported by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha and 50 members in the Rajya Sabha, respectively. This is the requirement for moving an impeachment motion in either of two houses. However, when motions are presented in both Houses on the same day, the statutory mandate under the proviso to Section 3(2) becomes operative.
The proceedings arise from an incident on March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in New Delhi. Firefighters reportedly recovered large amounts of unaccounted cash from the premises, visuals of which later surfaced showing currency bundles burning.
Justice Varma and his wife were not present in Delhi at the time and were travelling in Madhya Pradesh. His daughter and elderly mother were at home during the incident. Justice Varma has denied all allegations, alleging that he is being targeted.
Following the incident, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (since retired) constituted an in-house committee of three High Court judges, which submitted its report on May 4, indicting Justice Varma and recommending his removal. After Justice Varma declined to resign, the report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister, leading to impeachment motions in Parliament.
A Lok Sabha motion backed by 146 MPs was admitted, after which the Speaker constituted an inquiry panel comprising Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B Vasudeva Acharya. Justice Varma has since approached the Supreme Court, stating that he has not received authenticated copies of the parliamentary motions or consequential orders.
The committee has extended the deadline for his response from Justice Varma till January 12 and fixed January 24 for his appearance.