Supreme Court reserves verdict on Justice Yashwant Varma's plea against impeachment proceedings

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a plea by Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant 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..The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SC Sharma reserved the verdict this afternoon. The Court today also refused a request by Justice Varma's counsel to extend the deadline for his appearance before the probe committee set up by the Lok Sabha Speaker. The probe committee had sought his response in November 2025. The deadline given for this written response was extended once till January 12 this year.He was also asked to appear before the committee on January 24."Date to appear before the committee is approaching ..if that can be extended ... I was earlier granted one extension," Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal requested on behalf of Justice Varma today.The Court rejected the request."You appear. File written submissions by Monday. Judgment reserved," said the Court. .A fire at Justice Varma's house on March 14, 2025, had led to the recovery of unaccounted cash by firefighters and triggered allegations of corruption against the judge.Justice Varma has denied the accusations, but was transferred to his parent High Court of Allahabad from the Delhi High Court, and stripped of judicial work while further action was contemplated.Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna (who has since retired) initiated an in-house probe into the matter, and eventually asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. Justice Varma declined to quit his office.In August, the Lok Sabha Speaker initiated the process to remove Justice Varma from his position as a High Court judge, after admitting a motion by Members of Parliament (MPs) to impeach the judge.The Speaker constituted a three-member committee to probe the incident under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.Justice Varma then challenged these proceedings before the Supreme Court..Varma challenged the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision on procedural grounds. He 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 is contemplated when the impeachment motion is raised in both Houses. Only thereafter can a probe committee be set up, Varma's counsel argued..However, the Lok Sabha's Secretary General countered that the Rajya Sabha did not admit the impeachment motion, meaning that the proviso would not apply. He submitted that the impeachment motion was rejected by the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman on August 11, 2025, after the Chairman (then Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar) resigned in July.The Lok Sabha's Secretary General, therefore, contended that the Lok Sabha Speaker was well within his powers to independently continue the impeachment process.Yesterday, the Court questioned whether there was any law preventing the Lok Sabha Speaker from continuing impeachment proceedings against Varma merely because the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman may have rejected such a motion on the same day. The Court expressed prima facie disagreement with a view that in such cases, the impeachment motion would fail. .Arguments today.Today, Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Mukul Rohatgi argued that the Deputy Chairman had no power to act on the impeachment motion against Justice Varma.The Deputy Chairman should have waited for a new Chairman to take a decision on the impeachment motion, they contended. The argument was made after the Court noted that the Rajya Sabha Chairman had resigned before he could decide on the impeachment motion against Justice Varma."If there is some silence in Article 124(5) (which empowers parliament to enact law governing procedure for impeachment of a judge), then what shows that Article 91 (empowering Deputy Chairman to exercise Chairman's powers in his absence) is excluded?" the Court asked."The answer was simple. The matter could have waited till the new Chairman came in," Senior Advocate Luthra replied..Rohatgi added that interpreting Article 91 as empowering the Deputy Chairman to play a role in impeachment proceedings is not proper and could lead to conflict of interest."Article 91 has no place in scheme for the removal of judges. It only contains (provisions) to regulate the business of the House. If it applies (to impeachment proceedings), then it will lead to absurdity. Deputy Chairman is among the members of the House, unless he is called to take the chair in exigency. The Chairman (on the other hand) is completely non-partisan. So, here there is a conflict of interest (if Deputy Chairman decides on the impeachment motion brought by MPs). The position of a neutral judge cannot be taken by the Deputy Chairman. Applying Article 91 will lead to a conflict of interest. Only the Judges (Inquiry) Act or Article 124(5) is attracted, and nothing else. Deputy Chairman should not have acted at all," he said..Rohatgi also objected to a note authored by the Lok Sabha Secretary General in the matter, arguing that he appears to have written a judgment-like report without any authority to do so. "(The Lok Sabha) Secretary General is no one to make a report. Cash was found burning at the residence of a house. This is an one-time act and not recurring. This affects my reputation. Every part of the judgment written by the Secretary General is laughable," Rohatgi argued. .Deputy Chairman should not have acted.Justice Yashwant Varma's counsel.Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, also representing Justice Varma, added,"One organ, Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, cannot outweigh the decision of the other co-equal organ.".Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta represented the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha functionaries. He opposed the argument that the Deputy Chairman cannot act on an impeachment motion when the Chairman is absent. This would defeat the purpose of the law, he said.He also disputed arguments earlier made by Justice Varma's counsel that Rajya Sabha had "impliedly" admitted the impeachment motion against the judge soon after it was presented, meaning that the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have independently proceeded in the matter. "Admission is not automatic. The Speaker (of Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (of Rajya Sabha) has to apply his mind. So, he has two options, either to admit or to refuse," SG Mehta said. He added that the object of having a joint consultation between those presiding over the two Houses of Parliament is only to ensure that there is no duplication of such proceedings."(If impeachment motions are moved in both Houses on the same day) there is a possibility that both of them (Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairman of Rajya Sabha), being unaware of the notice being given in the other House, may end up constituting two separate committees. It is not desirable that two committees decide on two different issues. The idea, object, intent and textual interpretation is that there should be one motion. There should not be any duplication of that motion," he explained. .He also emphasised that such laws governing impeachment proceedings are meant to balance the rights of the public to know and the rights of a judge on the dock. "This entire scheme balances the right of the nation to know whether there is any misbehaviour which has taken place, vis-à-vis the right of the concerned judge. Where the majority of the members of the Inquiry Committee make a finding to the effect that the judge is not guilty of any misbehaviour or that he does not suffer from any incapacity, and the third member makes a finding to the contrary, the Inquiry Committee shall not disclose the finding. This is how the matter is balanced," he submitted. .The law balances the right of the nation to know whether there is any misbehaviour which has taken place, vis-à-vis the right of the concerned judge.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi with advocates Stuti Gujral, Vaibhav Niti, Keshav, Sowjhanya Shankaran, Abhinav Sekhri and Vishwajeet Singh also appeared for Justice Varma..[Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.