<div class="flex flex-col text-sm pb-25">
<article class="text-token-text-primary w-full focus:outline-none [--shadow-height:45px] has-data-writing-block:pointer-events-none has-data-writing-block:-mt-(--shadow-height) has-data-writing-block:pt-(--shadow-height) [&amp;:has([data-writing-block])&gt;*]:pointer-events-auto scroll-mt-[calc(var(--header-height)+min(200px,max(70px,20svh)))]" dir="auto" tabindex="-1" data-turn-id="request-693ff937-44ac-8328-b2be-2ee969c7a3d4-9" data-testid="conversation-turn-70" data-scroll-anchor="true" data-turn="assistant">
<div class="text-base my-auto mx-auto pb-10 [--thread-content-margin:--spacing(4)] @w-sm/main:[--thread-content-margin:--spacing(6)] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-margin:--spacing(16)] px-(--thread-content-margin)">
<div class="[--thread-content-max-width:40rem] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-max-width:48rem] mx-auto max-w-(--thread-content-max-width) flex-1 group/turn-messages focus-visible:outline-hidden relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn" tabindex="-1">
<div class="flex max-w-full flex-col grow">
<div class="min-h-8 text-message relative flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 text-start break-words whitespace-normal [.text-message+&amp;]:mt-1" dir="auto" data-message-author-role="assistant" data-message-id="0bed0406-10aa-4b22-bef2-9c025850f3ec" data-message-model-slug="gpt-5-2">
<div class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden first:pt-[1px]">
<div class="markdown prose dark:prose-invert w-full break-words light markdown-new-styling">
<p data-start="73" data-end="368"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Supreme Court on Tuesday flagged a significant procedural flaw in the ongoing parliamentary proceedings seeking the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, who is facing controversy following the recovery of cash from his official residence in Delhi earlier this year.</span></p>
<p data-start="370" data-end="731"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih observed that the process adopted by Parliament appeared to be inconsistent with the procedure laid down under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The court was hearing a petition filed by Justice Varma, who has challenged the constitution of the inquiry committee examining the allegations against him.</span></p>
<p data-start="733" data-end="1207"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Justice Varma, identifying himself as &ldquo;X&rdquo; in the petition filed through advocate Vaibhav Niti, argued that the proviso to Section 3(2) of the 1968 Act clearly states that when a motion for removal of a judge is moved on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no inquiry committee can be constituted unless the motion is admitted by both Houses. Once admitted, the committee must be jointly constituted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.</span></p>
<p data-start="1209" data-end="1472"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">In the present case, the motion for Justice Varma&rsquo;s removal was moved in both Houses on July 21. However, while the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion on August 12 and constituted a three-member inquiry committee, the motion in the Rajya Sabha remains pending.</span></p>
<p data-start="1474" data-end="1860"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">&ldquo;Our Parliament has several legal experts. Then how does this happen? Did the members of Parliament not notice that this cannot be done?&rdquo; the bench remarked while issuing notice on the petition. The court has sought responses from the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker as well as the secretary generals of both Houses of Parliament, and posted the matter for further hearing on January 7.</span></p>
<p data-start="1862" data-end="2199"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">The inquiry committee, constituted on August 12, comprises Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, and senior advocate B V Acharya. The panel has already issued notice to Justice Varma, directing him to submit his defence by January 12, 2026, and to appear in person on January 24.</span></p>
<p data-start="2201" data-end="2601"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma along with a team of senior lawyers, argued that the Speaker&rsquo;s unilateral decision to form the committee violated Section 3(2) of the Act. He contended that the Speaker was required to wait until the Rajya Sabha admitted the motion, following which the committee should have been jointly constituted by both presiding officers of Parliament.</span></p>
<p data-start="2603" data-end="3001"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Rohatgi also pointed out that an unusual situation arose on July 21, when the motion was moved in the Rajya Sabha on the same day the then Chairman, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, resigned from office. The bench questioned how such an oversight could have occurred, remarking that few matters could be more important than ensuring procedural correctness in proceedings for the removal of a judge.</span></p>
<p data-start="3003" data-end="3315"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Apart from Rohatgi, senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Aggarwal and Jayant Mehta also appeared for Justice Varma. The legal team did not seek a stay on the inquiry proceedings, noting that the matter would be heard by the Supreme Court before the deadline for filing the judge&rsquo;s defence.</span></p>
<p data-start="3317" data-end="3803"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Justice Varma has already written to the inquiry committee asserting that it is &ldquo;coram non judice,&rdquo; meaning that it lacks legal authority. He stated that both Houses of Parliament enjoy equal constitutional status and that removal proceedings cannot proceed unless both Houses admit the motion and jointly constitute the committee. He stressed that such proceedings are not akin to a routine departmental inquiry but involve a constitutional obligation to protect judicial independence.</span></p>
<p data-start="3805" data-end="4160"><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">The petition further argues that the removal of judges under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution requires strict adherence to the 1968 Act to prevent arbitrary action and preserve the independence of the judiciary. It contends that the Speaker&rsquo;s action could result in an incongruous situation if one House admits the motion while the other does not.</span></p>
<p data-start="4162" data-end="4767" data-is-last-node="" data-is-only-node=""><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">The case against Justice Varma stems from an incident on March 14, when a fire broke out at his official residence in Delhi and firefighters discovered currency notes stored in a sack while dousing the flames. An in-house three-member panel constituted later that month initiated an inquiry, and Justice Varma was transferred to his parent Allahabad High Court. The panel&rsquo;s report in May confirmed the recovery of cash. While Justice Varma denied the allegations and declined to resign, the then Chief Justice of India recommended initiation of removal proceedings to the President and the Prime Minister.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="z-0 flex min-h-[46px] justify-start">&nbsp;</div>
<div class="mt-3 w-full empty:hidden">
<div class="text-center">&nbsp;</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</article>
</div>
<div class="pointer-events-none h-px w-px absolute bottom-0" aria-hidden="true" data-edge="true">&nbsp;</div>

Top court questions procedure adopted by Parliament in judge’s removal proceedings

SC Flags Flaw in Justice Varma Removal Bid

Top court questions procedure adopted by Parliament in judge’s removal proceedings

December 17, 2025 | 15:05 IST