The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised doubts over the view that the motion admitted by the Lok Sabha for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma should be viewed as having failed if a similar motion raised in the Rajya Sabha on the same day was rejected.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a plea by Justice Varma to quash the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to constitute a three-member committee against him under the Judges (Inquiry) Act for his impeachment.Varma has challenged the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision on procedural grounds.
He has highlighted that although the notices for his impeachment were given in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla constituted a probe committee unilaterally without awaiting admission of the motion by the Rajya Sabha chairman.His counsel contended that under a proviso to Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, a joint consultation between the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman was contemplated in cases where the impeachment motion is raised in both Houses. Only thereafter can a probe committee be set up, he argued.
However, the Lok Sabha's Secretary General has now countered that the Rajya Sabha did not admit the impeachment motion, meaning that the proviso would not apply.Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Justice Varma today and maintained that there were procedural irregularities that vitiated the inquiry proceedings set in motion against the judge by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
"Proviso says when notices are given on the same day (in both Houses of Parliament), no committee shall be constituted unless motion is admitted in both the Houses and the Speaker forms a joint committee. In this case, (Lok Sabha Secretary General's affidavit says) that the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha has rejected the motion on August 11, 2025. On July 21, the motion was moved. Chairman resigned in the evening that day. On August 11, the motion was rejected by the Deputy Chairman," Rohatgi said.
Justice Datta then asked whether any law prevents the Lok Sabha Speaker from setting up a probe committee after the Rajya Sabha Chairman rejects an impeachment motion, where such motions are raised in both Houses.A joint committee is contemplated only if both Houses admit the impeachment motion, the Court noted.
"If one motion fails and one succeeds, then what happens? You said it will fail. But now let us read the proviso. If both Houses admit (the motion), then there is a joint committee. But if one rejects it, then where is the bar for Lok Sabha to appoint (a probe committee)? If one motion is not accepted, why should the motion of the other House fail?" Justice Datta asked.
He added,"When he (Chairman) sees the motion by 50 (Rajya Sabha) members and he says okay, (find out) if (similar motion has been) moved in Lok Sabha - this shows implied (admission)," he said.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that this series of events cannot be construed to be an implied admission of the impeachment motion."The Chairman was conscious that he is neither admitting nor refusing. He knew, when motion is presented on the same day... He wanted to verify whether there is another motion or not," Mehta said.
The Court eventually said that it will hear the matter further tomorrow, when it will examine whether Justice Varma's rights have been violated on account of non-consultation between the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman before the probe committee was set up.
Follow us
