New Delhi: Justice Yashwant Varma has moved the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the 12 August order passed by the Lok Sabha Speaker, as per which a three-member committee was constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to conduct removal proceedings against him.
The panel has the task to determine whether the allegations against Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, in whose residential premises wads of half-burnt Rs 500 currency notes were found in March, are true or not. Such an inquiry is the first step under the Constitution to remove a sitting judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G.Masih issued notice on his plea, seeking responses from the Lok Sabha Speaker and secretaries-general of both the Houses.
The next hearing will take place 7 January.
This is the second time Justice Varma has approached the top court following withdrawal of judicial work from him. Earlier, he had challenged former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna’s report to the President that gave a go ahead to initiate the constitutional mechanism to remove him. This petition was dismissed.
The August decision, according to the Allahabad High Court judge, should be quashed on grounds that it is unconstitutional and violates Articles 124, 217 and 218 of the Constitution, which deal with the removal process of HC judges, respectively.
Significantly, Article 218 says that HC judges can only be removed by the President after a special address by Parliament, with a two-thirds majority, on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
Underlining that this procedure violates the 1968 Act, Varma sought to set aside constitution of the three member committee. SC judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya are the members of the panel.
Also Read: Clean-up job by Justice Yashwant Varma’s aides: What panel probing judge cash row found
Grounds for challenge
Varma contended that he was a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, and was challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s action of unilaterally constituting a committee under Section 3(2) of the 1968 Act, for investigating the grounds of his removal as a HC judge.
This, he argued, violated his fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, as the procedure outlined under the designated law was not followed in his case, and because the Speaker had acted in an arbitrary manner.
Underlining that there were procedural lapses in the way his impeachment process was carried out, Varma said that there was a violation of the proviso of Section 3(2) of the 1968 Act.
The proviso says that where notices of a motion are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted unless it is admitted to both Houses and when such a motion is admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman.
He pointed out that although the impeachment notice was presented before the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, under Section 3(1) of the 1968 Act, (the Lok Sabha Speaker) Om Birla constituted the panel single handedly, without waiting for the Rajya Sabha chairman to accept or admit the motion, after joint consultation.
Crucially, Varma’s plea said that although the motion given in the Rajya Sabha was never admitted, nor was the Committee constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman of the Upper House, the Committee issued a notice 26 November, asking him to file his written statement of defence and to appear before the committee.
After this, on 6 December, he was asked to file a written statement in his defence and appear before the three-member committee on 24 January.
“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,” Justice Varma told the court.
Procedural lapse in question
The constitution of a committee under Section 3 of the 1968 Act is the first and crucial step of this mandatory and all-encompassing procedure, Varma argued in his plea, adding that it essentially stipulates the process for appointing committees in situations where motions are presented before both Houses of Parliament on the same day.
Varma told the court that the procedure outlined under the Inquiry Act is not just an “ordinary legislative exercise”, but a reflection of the constitutional obligation cast upon Parliament under Article 124(5) of the Constitution.
He also pointed out that the constitutional and statutory procedures relating to the removal of sitting judges of constitutional courts must be interpreted in a strict way, without exception, in order to ensure the judiciary’s independence and to prevent any arbitrary aberrations in the removal process.
Simply put, his case was that both motions must be admitted and if either was rejected, the other House cannot unilaterally proceed. Doing so would be illegal, he contended.
Only once the motions given before both Houses of Parliament were admitted, the Lok Sabha Speaker or the Rajya Sabha chairman could exercise their powers unilaterally, the procedure states.
Justice Varma contended that the Speaker’s action was illegal since it violated the Supreme Court’s directives since it categorically said that the earlier 3 May report, prepared by the Committee under the in-house procedure, cannot be relied upon for any purpose in this case.
The Speaker failed to reasonably and lawfully discharge the statutory discretion vested in him for admitting the motion for the removal of a constitutional judge, he contended.
(Edited by Tony Rai)