SC Hears Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Challenging Lok Sabha’s Impeachment Committee Decision

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma took up the matter, where Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Justice Varma, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

The petition questions the legality and procedural validity of the Speaker’s decision, alleging it violates the statutory framework governing the impeachment process for judges.

Rohatgi told the Court that two impeachment motions were moved on the same day in July 2025; one in the Lok Sabha and another in the Rajya Sabha, each backed by the requisite number of Members of Parliament. He contended that the Judges (Inquiry) Act contemplates such a scenario, and the proviso under Section 3 makes it clear that if motions are moved in both Houses simultaneously, a joint committee can only be formed if both motions are admitted. “In this case, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected the motion on August 11, 2025, while the Lok Sabha constituted a committee the very next day; August 12,” Rohatgi said. “Once one motion is rejected, the other cannot survive. The Lok Sabha committee is therefore non est (invalid),” he argued.

Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the interpretation, observing that the proviso must be “read purposively” and asked whether the rejection in one House necessarily nullifies the other’s ability to proceed. “If one motion is not accepted, why should the motion in the other House fail?” Justice Datta asked, suggesting that the Judges (Inquiry) Act does not explicitly bar the Lok Sabha from proceeding independently.

Rohatgi argued that Rajya Sabha Chairman’s actions implied an admission of the motion, and that the subsequent rejection by the Deputy Chairman amounted to a review of the Chairman’s decision, which was impermissible under the Act. “The Deputy Chairman cannot review what the Chairman has already passed,” Rohatgi submitted, adding that the Chairman never explicitly rejected the motion, only sought to verify procedural aspects.

However, the Solicitor General clarified that the Chairman had neither admitted nor rejected the motion, and that the Deputy Chairman’s order was procedurally sound. “The Chairman was conscious that he was neither admitting nor refusing the motion,” Mehta said. “He wanted to first verify if a similar motion was moved in the Lok Sabha before taking any step.”

Justice Datta noted that “prima facie something was not proper” in the manner the Rajya Sabha Secretariat handled the motion but stopped short of suggesting interference at this stage. “We have to only see if we should intervene under Article 32 to determine whether Justice Varma was deprived of the benefit of a joint committee,” Justice Datta said. “We are not with Mr. Rohatgi on all points, but the proviso issue and the Deputy Chairman’s role need close scrutiny.”

The Court said it would continue hearing the matter tomorrow, focusing on whether the procedure followed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act met constitutional standards and whether Justice Varma’s right to a joint inquiry was violated.

Case Title: X v. O/O Speaker of the House of the People

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma

Hearing Date: January 7, 2026