Supreme Court Weighs in on Inquiry Committee for Judge Amid Controversy

Supreme Court's Observations on Inquiry Committee

New Delhi: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court remarked that the Judges Inquiry Act does not prevent Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla from forming an inquiry committee to investigate corruption allegations against Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, despite a similar motion being dismissed in the Rajya Sabha.

A bench led by Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma expressed disagreement with senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi's argument, who represented Justice Varma, claiming that the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha lacked the authority to reject the motion after the chairperson, Jagdeep Dhankhar, resigned.

The court noted potential issues with how the Lok Sabha Speaker established the inquiry panel and indicated it would assess whether these issues were significant enough to halt the proceedings.

Rohatgi initially contested the Speaker's decision to create the inquiry committee, asserting that if impeachment motions are filed in both houses on the same day, a joint committee must be formed.

Justice Datta clarified that the court was not siding with Rohatgi on the initial points regarding the inquiry panel's formation and the deputy chairperson's actions, but rather considering whether intervention under Article 32 was warranted to determine if Justice Varma should benefit from a joint committee.

The bench was reviewing a petition from Justice Varma challenging the legality of the parliamentary inquiry panel established under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, following the discovery of unaccounted cash at his residence.

Rohatgi cited a provision in Section 3(2) of the Act, stating that if motions are submitted on the same day in both Houses, no committee should be formed unless both motions are accepted, and if accepted, a joint committee must be created by both the Speaker and the Chairman.

The bench pointed out that the Act does not explicitly prohibit one House from proceeding if the other rejects a motion.

Justice Datta questioned, "Where is the prohibition for the Lok Sabha to form a committee if the Rajya Sabha has dismissed the motion?"

He emphasized that the provision does not clarify that a rejection in the Rajya Sabha prevents the Lok Sabha from moving forward, suggesting a purposive interpretation of the silence in the law.

The bench acknowledged that had the Rajya Sabha admitted the motion, Justice Varma would have benefited from a joint committee.

The court then pondered whether the situation was detrimental enough to warrant intervention under Article 32 and scheduled further hearings for Thursday.

Rohatgi also criticized the deputy chairperson's decision to reject the motion, which had previously been accepted by the chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.

He raised the issue of whether the Lok Sabha Speaker could independently form an inquiry committee when removal motions were initiated in both Houses on the same day but only admitted in one.

He reiterated that for a judge's removal, Parliament must follow the procedures outlined in the Act, requiring a motion signed by a minimum of 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members.

Once a motion is accepted, a committee is to be formed to conduct an inquiry, similar to departmental proceedings, followed by a debate in the House.

Rohatgi highlighted that impeachment motions against Justice Varma were filed in both Houses on July 21, 2025.

He reiterated that when motions are submitted in both Houses on the same day, a joint committee must be formed only if both motions are accepted.

In this case, since one motion was rejected, the subsequent committee is legally invalid, he argued.

He contended that the Deputy Chairman can only oversee proceedings in the absence of the Chairman.

Justice Datta countered that with the Chairman's resignation, the Deputy Chairman would automatically assume the role.

Rohatgi clarified that the Deputy would only chair the proceedings in the House.

Disagreeing, Justice Datta stated that the Deputy can fulfill "the duties of the office of the Chairman."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked that the Rajya Sabha Chairperson merely acknowledged receipt of the motion without issuing a formal admission order.

Justice Varma was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt bundles of currency notes were discovered at his official residence on March 14.