Supreme Court Says Prima Facie Not Ready To Accept Challenge To Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman’s Authority; To Examine If Justice Varma Was Deprived Of "Joint Committee" Benefit

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Justice Varma challenging the legality of the three-member committee constituted solely by the Lok Sabha under the procedure provided by the Judges Inquiry Act. 

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, "Prima facie, let us be clear that we are not with Mr Rohatgi on 1 and 2, i.e. the proviso point and the deputy chairman role. We have to only see if we should intervene under Article 32 to see if the petitioner should have got benefit of the joint committee. Prima facie, we also think that there was something not proper in the note of the Secretary General. But we have to see if it is such that it warrants interference at all. Matter will be heard tomorrow now."

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Justice Varma.

The Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha rejected the motion on August 11, 2025. The Chairman resigned in the evening of July 21, 2025, when the motion was moved. 

Rohatgi argued that the central legal issue hinges on a procedural rarity under the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 regarding the removal of a judge. While the law requires a motion to be initiated by either 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha, this case involves the unique occurrence of motions being moved in both houses simultaneously on the same day in July.

Rohatgi contended that determining the proper legal course of action when such a "peculiarity" arises is the "fulcrum" of the litigation.

"If motions are not admitted by houses, moved on the same day, then the committee cannot be found...this committee is formed by the Speaker, it is not a joint committee. The proviso contemplates only one situation. It says, if motions are moved on the same day before the two houses sign by 50 and 100 respectively...If one motion is rejected, this committee could not have been formed. So no committee can be formed unless the motions are admitted", Rohatgi submitted.

Justice Datta, while reading the proviso, said, "Here the punctuation is very important...(reads the proviso)...now if one house has rejected, where is the bar under the Proviso for the Lok Sabha to appoint?"

Justice Datta said, "Let us assume, Lok Sabha is interested in favour of impeaching a judge...100 members are desirous to impeach a judge. Rajya Sabha, 50 members, are against it. They feel no, no impeachment motion should be moved...what these 50 members do is that they try to put in a motion with nefarious intentions that we will cuttle the process. They don't get 50 members; they get only 49 members. So what happens?... You are saying that the Lok Sabha motion is rejected. That cannot be the intention of the Lok Sabha."

Rohatgi said, "A motion will be called a motion when signed by 50 members; otherwise, it will just be a letter."

Justice Datta remarked, "Rules of construction require that the proviso has to be read as a part of the section. It says no joint committee can be formed, so unless the motion is admitted in both houses...and if not admitted it is silent. So we have to read it purposively to give meaning to intention of legislature."

Rohatgi said, "First stage motion is moved...In our case Deputy Speaker has rejected...this makes it clear that most places where the exercise has to be by the speaker or the chairman, nothing to do with the proceedings of the house...house cannot be paralysed because the chairman is not there."

He further contended that no reason was mentioned in the Reply as to why it was rejected. 

Rohatgi emphasized that under Section 2 and Section 7 of the Act, authority is specifically vested in the "Chairman" (of the Rajya Sabha) or the "Speaker" (of the Lok Sabha), noting that any rules created must be jointly approved by both. He argued that the Deputy Chairman only steps in once a committee is formed or when the law explicitly mandates it, likening the admission of a motion to proceedings under the 10th Schedule (Anti-Defection Law), which are internal to the House.

However, the Court remarked that while the Act specifies who should act, it may not have envisioned every contingency—such as a vacancy in the office—suggesting that the duties of the office must still be fulfilled to ensure the Act remains functional even when the primary seat is empty.

Rohatgi further contended that the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha had "impliedly admitted" the removal motion by taking preliminary administrative steps to coordinate with the Lok Sabha, arguing that the Deputy Chairman lacks the legal authority to review or overturn such decisions.

He emphasized that under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, the power to admit a motion rests strictly with the Chairman, and any subsequent action by the Deputy Chairman constitutes an impermissible review of a superior's decision.

Conversely, the Court questioned where a formal decision was actually recorded, remarking that simply verifying the number of signatures or seeking information to be "apprised" of the situation does not constitute a legal admission.

The Bench further noted that the law must remain functional during contingencies like a vacancy in office, suggesting that the duties of the post must be fulfilled even if the Act does not envision every specific scenario.

The Court asked the SG, "What is the procedure?...before admission, the chairman or the vice chairman can go into the merits?"

SG replied, "This is the observation of the Secretary General for its perusal."

Justice Datta remarked, "Any rejection of a motion is in favour of the Petitioner. It is only those who have given the motion. But today, if this motion had been accepted, he would have had the benefit of getting a joint committee, instituted by both speakers."

Background

The Court had agreed to hear Justice Varma's plea challenging the constitution of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker to probe corruption charges against him.

The inquiry committee comprises Supreme Court judge Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior Karnataka High Court advocate B V Acharya.

On August 7, 2025, the Supreme Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by Justice Varma challenging the in-house procedure and its outcome, including the recommendation forwarded by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.

The Court had also dismissed a connected petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma.

The Court had reserved the judgment on July 30, 2025. The Court had said Justice Varma’s conduct raised serious doubts, observing that he appeared to have waited for a favourable finding before approaching the Court, which undermined the credibility of his challenge.

Justice Varma had approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the findings of the in-house committee and the recommendation made by then CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna following the alleged recovery of charred high-denomination notes from his official residence in March 2025.

In his petition, Justice Varma had contended that he was not present in Delhi during the fire and had no knowledge of any cash. He alleged that the inquiry process violated natural justice, denied him a hearing, reversed the burden of proof, and operated without a formal complaint.

He argued that such proceedings bypass Parliament’s role under Articles 124 and 218. He has sought a declaration that the in-house procedure is inapplicable in such cases and prayed for the committee’s report and the 8 May 2025 recommendation to be declared unconstitutional and void.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, while addressing a press conference on June 17, 2025, had launched a sharp criticism of the Delhi Police over its handling of the fire and subsequent discovery of burnt cash at the government residence of Justice Yashwant Varma. He said the police failed to follow even basic procedure, and the entire sequence of events raised serious questions about institutional integrity and motive.

Cause Title: X v. Speaker of The House of People [W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025 Diary No. 71319 / 2025]