New Delhi [India], January 7 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday demurred on Justice Yashwant Varma's claim that the Committee, which was formed by the Parliament to probe corruption charges against the Allahabad High Court judge, is unsustainable, as the motion that led to its formation was admitted only in the Lok Sabha.
A bench of Justices Deepankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma has asked the counsel appearing for the Allahabad High Court judge to come up with a fitting response by tomorrow to convince the Court to intervene in the matter.
The Court is hearing a plea filed by Allahabad High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee probing corruption charges against him, on the ground that the same was constituted unilaterally by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, allegedly without consultation with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma today, argued that as per the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when a motion is given (moved) on the same day, in both the Houses of the Parliament, no committee shall be constituted, unless the motion is admitted in both the Houses and the Lok Sabha Speaker forms a Joint-Committee.
Adding a fresh ground to his argument, the senior lawyer informed the Court today that the Lok Sabha's counter-response to Justice Varma's plea states that "Rajya Sabha had rejected the motion on account of it being defective".
The Court, however, is of the view that the said argument falls short of convincing that the procedural lapse, if any, on the part of the Parliament, is prejudicial against Justice Varma.
The Lok Sabha, on the other hand, in its response to Justice Varma's plea, has taken the stand that the question of the legality of the Committee constituted by it does not arise, since the motion for Justice Varma's removal was duly admitted by the House. It has been contended that once the Rajya Sabha declined to admit the motion, the requirement of any consultation with the Upper House stood negated.
Notably, the bench also stated that there was something in the Lok Sabha's response (counter-affidavit to Justice Varma's plea) which should not have been there.
However, it clarified that the same is not sufficient for the Court to challenge the legality of the probe Committee. Thus, it asked Rohatgi to come with a substantial ground which would persuade the Court to intervene in the matter.
The Court will continue hearing the case tomorrow.
The case pertains to the recovery of unaccounted and partially burnt cash from the official residence of Justice Varma, then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. Following the internal inquiry, the former CJI, Sanjiv Khanna, forwarded a recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister of India to initiate the procedure for his removal.
Subsequently, on July 21, 2025, a motion was moved in both Houses of Parliament for Justice Varma's removal.
On August 12, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha formed a three-member Inquiry Committee to investigate the charges against Justice Varma.
The Lok Sabha Speaker's decision came after he received a notice of the motion, signed by 146 Members of Parliament, seeking Justice Yashwant Varma's removal.