NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea filed by Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, who had challenged the validity of a three-member Inquiry Committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker to probe corruption allegations against him.
Specifically, Justice Varma had argued that, as per the procedure prescribed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, since notices for his removal were submitted in both Houses of the Parliament on the same day, a Joint Committee should have been constituted, following the motions’ admission in both the Houses.
According to him, if the motion is not admitted in one House, the notice in the other House must automatically fail, and the Speaker of that House loses the authority to proceed further.
Disagreeing with Justice Varma’s contention, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih ruled that there is nothing in the Inquiry Act to suggest that rejection of a motion in one House would render the other House incompetent to proceed in accordance with law.
“Therefore, in a case where notices of motion were given in both Houses on the same day, the fact that a notice is not admitted in one House will not necessitate constitution of a Joint Committee and the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, can independently proceed to constitute a Committee”, the Court noted.
The Court also disagreed with the contention that if either House is unwilling to admit the removal motion, the process of impeachment would fail.
“The Inquiry Act cannot be interpreted in a manner that frustrates this objective by permitting the proviso to be employed as an instrument of obstruction. It has been contended, with considerable emphasis, that the legislative intent underlying the proviso is to confer an additional layer of protection to a Judge, by ensuring that if either House is unwilling to admit the motion, the process of impeachment must necessarily fail. We are unable to agree with such contention,” it said.
“In our view, the protection afforded to a Judge remains fully intact as, even where a motion is admitted and a Committee is constituted, either House retains the absolute authority to reject the motion after the Committee’s report is placed before it. Moreover, assuming arguendo that the proviso was intended to provide such heightened protection, it cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the mechanism of removal practically unworkable”, it added.
Rejecting another argument by Justice Varma that had challenged the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha’s competency to admit or reject the motion in the absence of the Chairman of the House, the apex Court unhesitatingly held that the Deputy Chairman was competent to consider the notice and refuse admission of the motion.
The Court stated that the duty of the Deputy Chairman to perform the duties of the office of the Chairman is sacrosanct to the functioning of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and cannot be separated. The Court added that though the Judges (Inquiry) Act is silent regarding the situation of the Chairman’s absence, Article 91 of the Constitution empowers the Deputy Chairman to perform the functions of the Chairman in the latter’s absence.
“The Inquiry Rules envisage a possible absence of the Chairman, whereas the Constitution provides for the Deputy Chairman in the event of the office of Chairman being vacant. Similar is the case for the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Hence, when the statute is silent on a particular aspect, the constitution and the doctrine of silence must be read into the statute to fill its gaps. The Constitution is the supreme and overarching legal framework, to which all statutes must conform”, the Court noted.
Moreover, the Court stated that the validity of the Speaker’s action does not hinge upon the correctness or otherwise of the decision taken by the Deputy Chairman. It noted that even if the Deputy Chairman’s refusal to admit the motion is treated as legally invalid, the position remains unchanged that on the date the Speaker acted, there was no admitted motion pending in the Rajya Sabha.
Ultimately, the Court denied Justice Varma any relief by observing that no prejudice had been caused to Justice Varma by the Speaker’s decision to solely constitute an inquiry committee and non-constitution of a Joint Committee as prescribed in the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Additionally, it refused to interfere in the parliamentary mechanism, in this regard, by observing that the same is not in violation of Justice Varma’s fundamental rights.
“The extraordinary remedy under Article 32 is confined to enforcement of Fundamental Rights and does not extend to issuing advisory or corrective directions in relation to internal statutory mechanisms of the Parliament, where no present or inevitable infraction of any Fundamental Right is evinced. Petitioner is, thus, not entitled to any relief”, it said.
The case pertains to the recovery of unaccounted and partially burnt cash from the official residence of Justice Varma, then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. Following the internal inquiry, the former CJI, Sanjiv Khanna, forwarded a recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister of India to initiate the procedure for his removal. Subsequently, on July 21, 2025, a motion was moved in both Houses of Parliament for Justice Varma’s removal.
On August 12, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha formed a three-member Inquiry Committee to investigate the charges against Justice Varma. The Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision came after he received a notice of the motion, signed by 146 Members of Parliament, seeking Justice Yashwant Varma’s removal. (ANI)
