Can't Lok Sabha continue Justice Yashwant Varma impeachment even if Rajya Sabha rejects motion? Supreme Court asks

The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised doubts over the view that the motion admitted by the Lok Sabha for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma should be viewed as having failed if a similar motion raised in the Rajya Sabha on the same day was rejected. .The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a plea by Justice Varma to quash the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to constitute a three-member committee against him under the Judges (Inquiry) Act for his impeachment..Varma has challenged the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision on procedural grounds.He has highlighted that although the notices for his impeachment were given in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla constituted a probe committee unilaterally without awaiting admission of the motion by the Rajya Sabha chairman.His counsel contended that under a proviso to Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, a joint consultation between the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman was contemplated in cases where the impeachment motion is raised in both Houses. Only thereafter can a probe committee be set up, he argued.However, the Lok Sabha's Secretary General has now countered that the Rajya Sabha did not admit the impeachment motion, meaning that the proviso would not apply..Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Justice Varma today and maintained that there were procedural irregularities that vitiated the inquiry proceedings set in motion against the judge by the Lok Sabha Speaker."Proviso says when notices are given on the same day (in both Houses of Parliament), no committee shall be constituted unless motion is admitted in both the Houses and the Speaker forms a joint committee. In this case, (Lok Sabha Secretary General's affidavit says) that the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha has rejected the motion on August 11, 2025. On July 21, the motion was moved. Chairman resigned in the evening that day. On August 11, the motion was rejected by the Deputy Chairman," Rohatgi said. .Justice Datta then asked whether any law prevents the Lok Sabha Speaker from setting up a probe committee after the Rajya Sabha Chairman rejects an impeachment motion, where such motions are raised in both Houses. A joint committee is contemplated only if both Houses admit the impeachment motion, the Court noted. "If one motion fails and one succeeds, then what happens? You said it will fail. But now let us read the proviso. If both Houses admit (the motion), then there is a joint committee. But if one rejects it, then where is the bar for Lok Sabha to appoint (a probe committee)? If one motion is not accepted, why should the motion of the other House fail?" Justice Datta asked. .If one house (Rajya Sabha) rejects (the impeachment motion).. then where is the bar for Lok Sabha to appoint (a probe committee)? Why should the motion of the other House fail?Supreme Court.Justice Datta went on to muse that a purposive interpretation of the law is required. "Rules of construction requires the proviso to be read as a part of the section. It says no joint committee can be formed unless the motion is admitted in both Houses. If (the motions are) not admitted (in both Houses), it is silent (as to whether a joint committee is required). So, we have to read it purposively to give meaning to the intention of the legislature," Justice Datta observed. He also eventually expressed that he did not, prima facie, agree with Rohatgi's argument that an impeachment motion in the Lok Sabha must fail if the a similar motion is rejected in the Rajya Sabha. .The hearing eventually turned on whether the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha was actually admitted.Rohatgi argued that there was an acknowledgment by the Rajya Chairman of the impeachment motion and that he had stated that proceedings under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act had been triggered.This implies that the motion was admitted in the Rajya Sabha, Rohatgi said. The senior lawyer further argued that the Deputy Chairman cannot sit over the Chairman's decision in such matters."Deputy Chairman is, at best, equal to the Chairman. Can he review what the chairman has passed?" Rohatgi argued.He added,"When he (Chairman) sees the motion by 50 (Rajya Sabha) members and he says okay, (find out) if (similar motion has been) moved in Lok Sabha - this shows implied (admission)," he said..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that this series of events cannot be construed to be an implied admission of the impeachment motion."The Chairman was conscious that he is neither admitting nor refusing. He knew, when motion is presented on the same day... He wanted to verify whether there is another motion or not," Mehta said..The Court eventually said that it will hear the matter further tomorrow, when it will examine whether Justice Varma's rights have been violated on account of non-consultation between the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman before the probe committee was set up. "We have to only see if we should intervene under Article 32 to see if the person (Justice Varma) should have got benefit of joint committee," the Court said. It also expressed reservations about the contents of certain communications referred to by the Solicitor General who argued that the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha secretariats were looped in on the impeachment motions raised in the respective Houses. "Prima facie, we also think that there was something not proper in the note of the secretary general. But we have to see if it is such that it warrants interference at all. Matter will be heard tomorrow now," the Court said. .A fire at Justice Varma's house on the evening of March 14, 2025, had reportedly led to the recovery of unaccounted cash by firefighters. This triggered allegations of corruption against the judge. Justice Varma denied the accusations. However, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna (who has since retired) initiated an in-house probe into the matter. A three-member in-house committee submitted its report to CJI Khanna on May 4, 2024.CJI Khanna, on receiving this report, asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. Justice Varma declined to quit, and CJI Khanna forwarded the report and the judge's response to it to the President of India and the Prime Minister.Following the corruption allegations, Justice Varma was sent back to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court. His judicial work has been taken away while further action is awaited.On August 7, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed Justice Varma's plea against the in-house committee report and CJI Khanna's recommendation for his removal..The same month, the Lok Sabha Speaker formally initiated the process to remove Justice Varma from his position as a High Court judge.Members of Parliament (MPs) had moved a motion to impeach the judge, which was accepted by the Speaker. The Speaker then constituted a committee of three members (two judges and a senior lawyer) to probe the incident. The panel in November 2025 sought a written statement from Justice Varma.Justice Varma challenged these proceedings under the Judges (Inquiry) Act in his plea before the Supreme Court. The Court issued notice to the Speaker and the Secretariats of the upper house (Rajya Sabha) and the lower house (Lok Sabha) of the Parliament last month.Meanwhile, a deadline given for Justice Varma's written response to the probe committee set up by the Lok Sabha Speaker expired and the said deadline was extended till January 12, 2026. He has also been asked to appear before the committee on January 24..Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Aggarwal and Jayant Mehta with advocates Stuti Gujral, Vaibhav Niti, Keshav, Sowjhanya Shankaran, Abhinav Sekhri and Vishwajeet Singh appeared for Justice Varma before the Court. .[Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.