Rajya Sabha Secretariat note reveals why Justice Yashwant Varma removal notice didn't receive Chairman's assent

An internal note of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat has revealed why the motion for removal of Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma on allegations of corruption fell through.

The note recorded that the notice relied on certain documents and material facts but did not enclose authenticated copies of those materials for consideration at the admission stage.

In addition, the Secretariat flagged factual inconsistencies in the sequence of events set out in the notice, including a date that precedes the fire incident at Justice Varma's Delhi residence, which formed the basis of the allegations. While the incident occurred on March 14, 2025, the notice stated that the three-member in-house committee conducted an inspection at the site on March 3, 2025.

Drawing attention to past parliamentary practice, the note recorded that where substantive motions have contained serious procedural or factual deficiencies, Presiding Officers have declined to admit them.

On July 21, 2025, the then Chairman of the Rajya Sabha announced receipt of a notice seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma, which was signed by more than 50 members of the Council of States.

On the same day, the Law Minister informed the House that a similar notice had also been submitted in the Lok Sabha. Following this statement, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat sought written confirmation from the Lok Sabha Secretariat as part of established procedure.

The Lok Sabha Secretariat informed the Rajya Sabha Secretariat that a notice seeking removal of Justice Varma, signed by 145 members of the Lok Sabha, had also been submitted on July 21, 2025.

As part of its internal process, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat initiated verification of the signatures on the notice. The note records that discrepancies were found in the signatures of three signatories when compared with specimen records. Despite this, the Secretariat noted that the notice still met the statutory requirement of having valid signatures of at least 50 Rajya Sabha members.

The Secretariat, however, emphasised that numerical sufficiency alone was not determinative at the admission stage.

According to the note, Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 vests the discretion to admit or refuse a removal motion solely in the Speaker or the Chairman, after considering procedural compliance and available material.

Further, it was stated that the statutory scheme governing removal of judges does not contemplate any role for Parliament at the stage of admitting a motion, placing that responsibility exclusively with the Presiding Officer of the House (Chairman of Rajya Sabha in this case).

Internal documents accessed by Bar & Bench show that the Secretariat’s analysis proceeded on a close reading of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, distinguishing between the preliminary stage of admission of a motion and the later stage when the House considers an inquiry report.

At the preliminary stage, the note records, the House as a collective body has no role, and parliamentary involvement is envisaged only after an inquiry committee submits its report under the subsequent provisions of the Act.

On this understanding, the Secretariat scrutinised the manner in which the notice was framed and found that it sought admission of the motion by the House, rather than inviting a decision by the Chairman, which the Secretariat treated as inconsistent with the statutory framework.

The Secretariat concluded that procedural safeguards are central to the statutory scheme governing removal of judges and that deficiencies at the admission stage cannot be cured merely by numerical support.

On this basis, the note proposed that the notice be treated as not in order and, therefore, not admitted. The Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha recorded agreement with this conclusion and directed that the Lok Sabha Secretariat be informed accordingly.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in Justice Varma’s petition challenging the committee constituted to inquire into allegations of corruption against him following the alleged recovery of cash at his Delhi residence in the wake of the fire at his residence in March 2025.

During the hearing, the Bench observed that the Secretary-General’s note raised fundamental issues and that the Court may need to record observations for future constitutional discourse.