Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against Removal Motion in Parliament
Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Speaker’s decision to admit a motion for Justice Yashwant Varma’s removal and to set up an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
Supreme Court dismissed Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit a removal motion and constitute an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who had challenged the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker to admit a motion seeking his removal and to constitute an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order.
Justice Varma had approached the Apex Court questioning the Speaker’s decision to allow the removal motion to be taken up and to initiate the statutory process for inquiry into the allegations against him. He had contended that the Speaker’s action was legally unsustainable and sought judicial intervention to stall the inquiry process.
The Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea, effectively clearing the way for the inquiry committee to proceed in accordance with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which governs the procedure for investigating allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity against judges of the constitutional courts.
Under the 1968 Act, once a removal motion is admitted by the Speaker or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, an inquiry committee is constituted to examine the charges. The committee’s findings form the basis for further parliamentary action, including consideration of the removal motion.
Notably, on January 8, the Bench had reserved the order in the case.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that two identical motions based on the same facts and allegations were initiated simultaneously in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, raising a serious constitutional question on whether co-equal Houses of Parliament could allow such proceedings to meet different fates.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also representing Justice Varma, argued that Article 91, which deals with the powers of the Deputy Chairman, had no application to impeachment proceedings. He maintained that the removal of a judge was a “special business” under Article 124(5), distinct from the normal functioning of Parliament. Rohatgi warned that permitting the Deputy Chairman to act could lead to conflicts of interest, especially if the Deputy Chairman or a person appointed to preside over the House happened to be a signatory to the impeachment motion.
Responding for the two houses of parliament, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the process, submitting that the Judges (Inquiry) Act aimed to avoid anomalous situations such as multiple committees examining the same allegations. He argued that the proviso to the Act did not confer any vested right on the judge concerned and that admission of a motion was not automatic. According to Mehta, the Speaker or Chairman was required to apply their mind after examining the available material. Mehta warned that excluding the Deputy Chairman from exercising powers in the Chairman’s absence would render the statutory scheme unworkable and defeat the object of the Act. He emphasised that the law sought to balance judicial independence with parliamentary accountability, and any interpretation that crippled the mechanism for inquiry had to be avoided.
The Bench repeatedly underscored the need to ensure that there was no constitutional stalemate and questioned whether the petitioner had demonstrated any real or grave prejudice caused by the procedure adopted. Justice Datta noted that constitutional institutions could not be left in limbo merely because of a temporary vacancy.
According to the petition, while both motions satisfied the statutory requirement of being signed by the requisite number of Members of Parliament, only the Lok Sabha motion was admitted. On August 12, 2025, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha admitted the motion and proceeded to constitute a three-member inquiry committee. The motion in the Rajya Sabha, however, was never admitted.
Case Title: X v. O/O Speaker of the House of the People
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma
Pronouncement Date: January 16, 2026