Judge tells Supreme Court Speaker cannot unilaterally form inquiry committee under Judges Act
January 7, 2026: Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday opposed before the Supreme Court the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute an inquiry committee to probe corruption allegations against him. Appearing for Justice Varma, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the committee was “non est in law” as impeachment motions were initiated in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day. Citing the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, Rohatgi said that in such circumstances, a joint committee of both Houses is mandatory, and unilateral action by the Lok Sabha Speaker violates constitutional procedure.
Rohatgi further understandingly challenged the rejection of the motion in the Rajya Sabha by its Deputy Chairman, asserting that once motions are properly moved in both Houses simultaneously, the law requires a joint process. He maintained that the subsequent constitution of a three-member inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker on August 12, a day after the Rajya Sabha rejected its motion, breached Article 124(5) of the Constitution and the mandatory provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court bench, however, questioned whether rejection in one House automatically bars proceedings in the other, noting the absence of an explicit statutory prohibition.
The case stems from allegations against Justice Varma after burnt currency notes were found at his official Delhi residence in March 2025. An in-house inquiry ordered by the then Chief Justice of India found him guilty of misconduct, following which impeachment proceedings were initiated after he declined to resign. Justice Varma has now sought quashing of the Speaker’s actions, the admission of the removal motion, and all consequential proceedings, arguing that the entire process is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is continuing to hear the matter.