The Supreme Court on Friday refused to quash the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute a three-member committee against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma by the Lok Sabha Speaker over corruption charges.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the petition filed by Justice Varma challenging the Speaker’s procedural authority in constitute the committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
A fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi on March 14, 2025, during which firefighters reportedly recovered substantial amounts of unaccounted cash. The incident triggered allegations of corruption and grave misconduct. Although Justice Varma denied the allegations, he was transferred from the Delhi High Court to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, and divested of judicial work pending further action.
Subsequently, the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, invoked the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure and ordered a preliminary inquiry. Following the completion of the investigation, Justice Varma was advised to either demit office or face removal proceedings under the constitutional mechanism. He declined to resign.
In August, the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted a motion moved by Members of Parliament seeking Justice Varma’s removal under Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) of the Constitution, read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Acting thereon, the Speaker constituted a statutory committee to investigate the charges, as mandated by Section 3 of the 1968 Act.
Justice Varma assailed this decision before the Apex Court, contending that the Speaker had acted in violation of the proviso to Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. The Counsel appearing for Justice Varma argued that since impeachment notices had been submitted in both Houses of Parliament, the Speaker could not unilaterally constitute an inquiry committee without prior joint consultation with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. According to the petitioner, such consultation was a mandatory precondition where parallel motions were pending in both Houses.
The Counsel representing the Lok Sabha Secretariat submitted that the Rajya Sabha had not admitted the motion. It was argued that the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha had rejected the impeachment notice on August 11, 2025, following the resignation of the then Vice-President and Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, in July. In the absence of an admitted motion in the Upper House, the statutory proviso was inapplicable, leaving the Speaker fully empowered to proceed independently.
During the hearings, the Bench examined whether any constitutional or statutory bar existed to prevent the Lok Sabha Speaker from advancing the impeachment process merely because the Rajya Sabha had declined to admit a corresponding motion. It also expressed prima facie skepticism toward the proposition that rejection of a motion in one House would ipso facto defeat proceedings in the other, noting the distinct constitutional roles assigned to each House in removal proceedings.
The post Cash-at-home row: Supreme Court upholds impeachment probe against Justice Yashwant Varma appeared first on India Legal.