The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on Justice Yashwant Varma’s challenge to the impeachment proceedings initiated against him, while questioning his contention that the Rajya Sabha should have waited for the appointment of a new Chairperson before acting on the impeachment motion.
Justice Varma has challenged the validity of the impeachment process, arguing that the Lok Sabha Speaker’s “unilateral” decision to constitute an inquiry committee was contrary to law. According to him, since impeachment notices had been moved in both Houses of Parliament, the probe panel should have been jointly constituted by the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
However, Rajya Sabha Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned on the same day that 50 Opposition MPs submitted an impeachment notice in the Upper House. The government has maintained that the Rajya Sabha motion was never admitted.
Counsel for Justice Varma disputed this claim, citing a statement from the Rajya Sabha secretariat—submitted in response to a Supreme Court query—which said that the deputy Chairperson rejected the motion after Dhankhar’s resignation on July 21. They argued that the deputy Chairperson lacked the authority to decide on the admission of an impeachment motion.
“Where is the precedent that it cannot be?” Justice Dipankar Datta, who headed the Bench along with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, asked. “Your argument is that only the Chairman has the power. But today we have a situation where the Chairman resigned.”
Senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that while the Chairperson is expected to be non-partisan and exercises only a casting vote in such matters, the deputy Chairperson—who presides only in contingencies—does not enjoy the same neutrality.
They cited a hypothetical scenario in which the deputy Chairperson himself could have been a signatory to the impeachment notice, questioning how he could then act impartially, though acknowledging that such a situation did not arise in the present case.
After the Opposition moved the impeachment motion, Dhankhar had reportedly sought clarity on whether a similar notice had been moved in the Lok Sabha and outlined the procedure to be followed when motions are pending in both Houses. Some Opposition MPs have alleged that this was perceived by the government as an inclination to admit the motion, prompting pressure on Dhankhar to resign. They claimed the government preferred the motion to be admitted only in the Lok Sabha, where Treasury benches were part of the initiative.
Subsequently, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted a bipartisan impeachment notice signed by 100 MPs and constituted a three-member inquiry committee. The impeachment relates to the alleged accidental discovery of bags containing partially burnt, unaccounted cash at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi when he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court. He was later transferred to the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Datta observed that there could not be a “vacuum” in the absence of a Rajya Sabha Chairperson. “It would be difficult for us to accept the position that for a prolonged period no decision can be taken. If there is a contingency requiring imminent action, who will perform that function?” he asked.
Luthra further argued that the deputy Chairperson rejected the Rajya Sabha motion without proper consideration or reasons, merely affixing a “one-line signature.” He said such an approach violated Articles 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution, which govern the impeachment of Supreme Court and High Court judges.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the secretariats of both Houses of Parliament, countered that the question of forming a joint inquiry committee would arise only if impeachment motions were admitted by both Houses on the same day. Since that did not occur, he said, the Lok Sabha Speaker’s action was valid.
The inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker comprises Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice M.M. Shrivastava, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya of Karnataka.
