New Delhi: Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, facing removal proceedings, has time till 12 January to submit his written response before the enquiry panel probing allegations of discovery of a large amount of half-burnt currency notes from his official Delhi residence in March last year.
A Supreme Court bench of justices Dipankar Dutta and S.C. Sharma declined to grant him more time and asked him to comply with the panel’s directions.
Speaking to ThePrint, a counsel from Justice Varma’s team explained that the judge has already appeared before the panel, through his lawyers and, as per the last order, is needed to submit his written stand in the matter. “He is not required to appear personally on 12 January,” the counsel clarified.
The judge’s counsel had made the request for an extension after the bench concluded its hearing on his petition that challenged the constitution of the three-member probe panel by the Lok Sabha Speaker. The bench has reserved its verdict.
Set up on 12 August, 2025, this panel is headed by Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar and comprises Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, M.M. Shrivastava and senior advocate Vasudeva Acharya.
According to Justice Varma, the constitution of the panel violates the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complete code on removing a judge.
According to him, two motions were moved on 21 July, 2025, one before the Lok Sabha and the other before the Rajya Sabha, for his removal.
While the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion, the one in the Upper House was rejected on 11 August by the Deputy Chairman, who occupied the office since it fell vacant after vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar, the ex-officio chairman of Rajya Sabha, stepped down.
Justice Varma has contended the law requires formation of a joint committee in case an impeachment motion is moved on the same day in different Houses, and is admitted. However, in his case while one House admitted the motion, the other rejected it, hence the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have unilaterally created the panel, he argued.
Justice Varma has also questioned the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman’s power to reject the motion, saying the code vests an absolute power only on the Chairman.
In the third limb of his argument, Justice Varma has also contended that when Dhankhar was in office and received the motion on 21 July, he had sent an official note to the Lok Sabha Speaker, inquiring if he too had got a similar motion.
This shows, according to the judge, that Dhankhar, as the Chairman of the Upper House, triggered the removal process, which meant that he had admitted the motion, warranting a joint committee to look into the corruption charges.
Also Read: Justice Yashwant Varma challenges impeachment proceedings over cash row. SC issues notice to LS, RS
What govt said on his objections
On Thursday, solicitor general Tushar Mehta rebutted Justice Varma’s interpretation of the provision in Judges Enquiry Act, 1968 – section 3 (2) – which is at the centre of the arguments in the case. Section 3 (2) prescribes for when a probe committee ought to be formed.
According to Mehta, the provision does not envisage a situation where no probe panel can be constituted. Rather, it intends to avoid a complication that could arise owing to two separate enquiry committees – one by the Lok Sabha and the other by the Rajya Sabha.
He clarified that the law nowhere states that there should be no panel in case one of the two motions is rejected.
He pointed that the provision also mentions that if two motions are given on separate days, then the one given later will lapse. This clearly demonstrates the purpose of the statute, which is to “avoid the constitution of two inquiry committees, so that there are no conflicting opinions on the same materials.”
The law officer also argued that there was no “demonstrable prejudice” caused to the petitioner due to the Speaker’s decision or by the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman’s action to reject the motion against him.
To the court’s query on whether the motion can be placed before the current Chairman, as asked by Justice Varma, Mehta responded, “Will the court exercise powers under Article 32 and have the exercise be done fresh when there is no allegation against the Speaker or the member of the committee or against the qualifications of the members of the committee?”
He even contested Justice Varma’s claim that a Deputy Chairman could not have acted when the Chairman’s post was vacant. Mehta said the motion was duly rejected, meaning there was no admission of the motion.
He added the Lok Sabha Speaker was well within his powers to independently continue the impeachment process.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)