Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Yashwant Verma's Petition Against Impeachment Inquiry

The Supreme Court has ruled against Justice Yashwant Verma's petition challenging the impeachment inquiry initiated by the Lok Sabha Speaker. The court emphasized the constitutional validity of the inquiry process and the need for accountability within the judiciary. This ruling highlights the delicate balance between judicial independence and parliamentary authority. The case, which arose from allegations of misconduct following a fire at Verma's residence, will now proceed with the parliamentary committee's investigation. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional procedures in maintaining democratic integrity. As the nation watches closely, the implications of this ruling could have far-reaching effects on judicial accountability in India.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jan 16, 2026, 16:35 IST

Supreme Court's Ruling on Justice Verma's Petition

Today, the Supreme Court rejected the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Verma of the Allahabad High Court, which challenged the decision of the inquiry committee formed by the Lok Sabha Speaker for his impeachment. In his petition, Justice Verma argued that the establishment of the three-member inquiry committee was unconstitutional, as per Section 3(2) of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, which states that such a committee can only be formed after both Houses of Parliament, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, accept the impeachment motion. He also claimed that the action taken by the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha at that time was illegal, as he did not officially hold the position of the Rajya Sabha Chairman. However, the bench clarified that the committee's formation by the Speaker was not unlawful and found no legal flaws in the process. The court emphasized the need to maintain a careful balance between the procedure for action against judges and the independent rights of MPs. The court stated that Justice Verma could not be granted any relief and that judicial intervention in this matter was unnecessary.

Background of the Controversy

This controversy began in March 2025 when a significant amount of burnt cash was discovered during a fire at Justice Verma's official residence in Delhi. Following this incident, an in-house inquiry committee acknowledged Justice Verma's alleged misconduct and recommended initiating his removal process. Subsequently, an impeachment motion was presented in the Lok Sabha, leading to the formation of a parliamentary committee for investigation by the Lok Sabha Speaker.

Justice Verma's Defense

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Justice Verma also contended that it was unfair to hold him accountable for the cash found at the scene, especially since he was not present there, and claimed that the responsibility lay with the fire department, police, and other officials.

Supreme Court's Considerations

While considering the petition, the Supreme Court noted the necessity of balancing the personal freedom of the judge with the constitutional role of the parliamentary inquiry committee. The judiciary clarified that the authority of the parliamentary committee to investigate and the Speaker's decision had been legally scrutinized and found to be without any impropriety. The parliamentary inquiry process against Justice Verma will now proceed, and the committee will present its detailed report.

Implications for Indian Democracy

The Supreme Court's decision underscores fundamental principles upon which Indian democracy is built. The judiciary has always been regarded as an independent institution. Therefore, if judges are perceived to be beyond accountability, it would contradict the essential tenets of democratic balance. Regardless of the severity of the allegations against Justice Verma, the court made it clear that the committee's formation was entirely legitimate and free from procedural exceptions. This sends a strong message that when parliamentary bodies exercise their constitutionally granted powers, their decisions, if within the legal framework, will not be overturned by the Supreme Court. This is the beauty of democracy: no institution can wield power without accountability.

Conclusion

Overall, this case presents a significant challenge regarding judicial accountability, the legitimacy of parliamentary inquiry processes, and the balance of democratic institutions. The Supreme Court's ruling indicates that only actions adhering to constitutionally established procedures will receive judicial approval. It remains to be seen what further actions will be taken against Justice Verma, as the entire nation is closely watching this case.