‘Speaker Committed No Illegality In Constituting Committee’: SC Dismisses Justice Varma's Plea

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma challenging the legality of the parliamentary panel probing corruption charges against him.

Justice Dipankar Datta pronounced the judgment on behalf of a bench comprising him and Satish Chandra Sharma. The bench framed five questions and answered them.

Justice Datta said the first question, "Does the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act require the constitution of a Joint Committee where notices, having been given in both Houses on the same day, is later followed by refusal to admit the motion by the Presiding Officer of one House and admission of the motion by the Presiding Officer of the other House?"

“Our answer is, no, it does not. The proviso applies to only one specific situation, namely, when notices of motion given on the same day have been admitted by both houses. It does not restrict or negate the individual authority of either House...”, said Justice Datta.

He added that the second concern is whether the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha was competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion. “Answer is, yes…”, he said. Justice Datta said that question number three is what is the effect, if any, of the deputy chairman’s refusal to admit the motion, on the validity of the speaker's action, under Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act.

“We have said there's no need to examine this issue as the order of the deputy chairman is not under challenge. Arguendo, even if it were examined. It would have no effect. Since the speaker committed no illegality in constituting the committee”, said Justice Datta.

The fourth question, he said, is whether the draft decision prepared by the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha, recording that the notice of motion given to the chairman is not in order, is justified in law. “We have said no, it does not align with the procedure contemplated under the law,” the judgment said.

“The last issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief. We have said that he's not entitled to any relief. For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for. The present petition stands dismissed. We have made it very clear that our answer to issue number 4 is an academic discussion, and not to be taken benefit or advantage of by the petitioner in the proceedings against him”, said Justice Datta.

On January 8, the apex court had reserved its verdict on Justice Varma's plea challenging the legality of the parliamentary panel probing corruption charges against him.

The SC had then observed that if the vice president can exercise the functions of the president in the absence of the president, then why cannot the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman exercise the functions of the chairman in the absence of the chairman?

The apex court had declined to agree with the submission made on behalf of Justice Varma that the deputy chairman of Rajya Sabha had no power to reject a motion and, under the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, only the speaker and the chairman have the power to accept or reject a motion against a judge.

Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt wads of currency notes were found at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra represented Justice Varma before the bench.

Hope no other judge faces removal proceedings

The apex court said in its opinion that the mischief which the Inquiry Act sought to remedy was the absence of a statutory mechanism for investigating allegations against a judge and for facilitating such investigation. "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", said the bench.

Justice Datta, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said, "We do hope that no other judge faces proceedings for his removal from service on allegations of misbehaviour".

"Should, at all, there be an unfortunate recurrence of a judge prima facie indulging in misbehaviour and the representatives of the people of the nation demand an investigation based on allegations of misbehaviour, it would be just and proper if Secretariat exercises restraint and leaves it to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, as the case may be, to decide the question of admission of a motion instead of concluding as to what should be the future course of action", said Justice Datta.

The bench said this court has, in a long line of decisions, consistently held that every infraction of the rules governing discipline and control does not, by itself, vitiate disciplinary proceedings.

"A plea founded on infraction of procedure must necessarily be examined through the prism of prejudice, having regard to the nature of the rule alleged to have been infracted, namely, whether it is mandatory or merely directory", it said.

The bench said such an enquiry presupposes the existence of infraction of a governing rule. In the present case, however, it is unnecessary to undertake such an exercise, for the petitioner has failed to establish infringement of any vested or accrued right.

The bench said it heard arguments that initiation of proceedings against the petitioner has caused irreparable reputational and constitutional prejudice and that the doctrine of “no prejudice” cannot apply where mandatory safeguards are violated. “This argument presupposes illegality in the constitution of the Committee which, for reasons already discussed, we are unable to accept”, said Justice Datta.

Background

The apex court had issued notice on a plea by Justice Varma challenging the constitution of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker to probe corruption charges against him. The inquiry committee comprises Supreme Court judge Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior Karnataka High Court advocate B V Acharya.

Justice Verma’s plea contended that the petitioner is assailing the action of the speaker of the Lok Sabha in unilaterally constituting a committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 for making an investigation into the grounds on which the petitioner's removal as a judge of the high court has been sought, as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

“The above action and all consequential actions are impugned as being contrary to the peremptory prescription contained in the first proviso to Section 3(2) Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 because although notices of motion under Section 3(1) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 were given in both houses of Parliament on the same day, the speaker constituted the committee unilaterally without awaiting admission of the motion by the chairman and the joint consultation with the chairman as contemplated in that statute”, said the plea.

Justice Verma’s plea said on July 21, 2025, members of Parliament gave separate motions before both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, seeking the removal of the petitioner as a judge in terms of the Constitution. “Both motions met the statutory numerical requirement of being signed by the requisite number of members. Thereafter, on August 12, 2025, the speaker of the Lok Sabha announced that he was admitting the motion given before him on July 21, and constituting a three-member committee as envisaged under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to conduct the statutory inquiry against the petitioner”, said the plea.

The plea contended that though the motion in the Rajya Sabha was never admitted, nor was the committee constituted jointly by the speaker and chairman. “The speaker has acted in clear derogation of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry), Act, by unilaterally constituting a committee on August 12, after admitting a motion given before the Lok Sabha on July 21, as on the very same day a separate motion was given in the Rajya Sabha, which had not been admitted”, said the plea.

Wads of burnt cash were found following a fire in the storeroom of the judge's official residence in the national capital on March 14. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Justice Varma challenging the legality of the three-member committee constituted solely by the Lok Sabha under the procedure provided by the Judges Inquiry Act.

Also read:

1. If VP Can Exercise Prez's Functions, Why Can't RS Deputy Chairman Perform Duties Of Chairman: SC
2. 'Some Infirmity In Forming Inquiry Committee, Would See If Its Grave Enough': SC On Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea