'Some Infirmity In Forming Inquiry Committee, Would See If Its Grave Enough': SC On Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : January 7, 2026 at 6:16 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally observed that it seems there is some infirmity in the Lok Sabha Speaker's constitution of the inquiry committee to probe allegations against Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, and it will consider whether it is so grave, so as to warrant the termination of the proceedings.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma 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, 1968.
Concluding the hearing, Justice Datta orally observed, "Let us be clear, prima facie we are not with Mr (Mukul) Rohatgi on one and two…that proviso, construction of the proviso, and in the absence of the chairman, whether the deputy chairman could have…very limited point is this that had the Rajya Sabha also admitted the motion you would have had the benefit of a joint committee".
"That it is so prejudicial to your interest that we under Article 32, should interfere, we are giving you time to ponder on this point and come back tomorrow to tell us", added Justice Datta.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Justice Varma, submitted that if motions are moved simultaneously in both the houses, then a committee can be formed only jointly by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
The senior lawyer, referring to the affidavit filed by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, contended that the motion in the Rajya Sabha was rejected by the Deputy Chairman on August 11, 2025, and the committee was formed on August 12, 2025, by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
However, Rohatgi highlighted that the motions in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha were moved on the same day, July 11, 2025.
Relying on the proviso to Section 3(2), it was argued before the bench that after one house rejected the motion, the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have constituted the committee.
The bench asked if one house has rejected a motion, then where is the bar on the Lok Sabha in constituting the committee?
Rohatgi replied that since both motions were moved on the same day, both of them require to be admitted, and only then, the committee can be formed, that too jointly by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
Adjourning the hearing for tomorrow, the bench observed that prima facie, we also think that there was something in the note of the secretary general, which should not have been there, but that is not under challenge, and added, "there is some infirmity...it would be to such an extent that for this the entire committee has to be...".
Earlier, the top 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.
Background
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 the 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", the plea contended.
Wads of burnt cash were found following a fire in the storeroom of the judge's official residence in Delhi on March 14, 2025.
Read More
