Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Varma's Plea Against Parliamentary Probe
Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt wads of currency notes were found at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14
By : Rakesh K. Singh
Update: 2026-01-16 06:30 GMT
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit a motion seeking his removal and the legality of the parliamentary panel probing corruption charges against him.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma, which had reserved its verdict on January 8, pronounced the decision on Friday.
Rejecting Justice Varma’s contention that only the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha were empowered under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to admit or reject a motion against a judge, the Court held that the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is competent to refuse admission of such a motion.
The apex court clarified that the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act applies only when notices of motion given on the same day are admitted by both Houses of Parliament. “It does not restrict or negate the individual authority of either House,” the Bench said.
The Court further ruled that the Deputy Chairman’s refusal to admit a motion in the Rajya Sabha has no bearing on the Speaker’s power to constitute an inquiry committee under the Act. Even otherwise, it said, the Speaker committed no illegality in setting up the committee.
On the relief sought by the petitioner, the Court held that the extraordinary remedy under Article 32 is confined to enforcement of fundamental rights and does not extend to interference in internal statutory mechanisms of Parliament in the absence of any present or inevitable violation of such rights. “The petitioner is, thus, not entitled to any relief,” it said, dismissing the writ petition.
Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt wads of currency notes were found at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14 last year.
Earlier, the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, had initiated an in-house inquiry and constituted a three-member committee, which later found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct. After he declined to resign, the report and his response were forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister, paving the way for impeachment proceedings.
Subsequently, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted a multi-party motion for Justice Varma’s removal and constituted a parliamentary inquiry committee. Justice Varma had sought quashing of the Speaker’s action, terming the process unconstitutional and contrary to the Judges (Inquiry) Act.