Justice Varma’s impeachment motion was never admitted in Rajya Sabha: Lok Sabha speaker to SC

The motion for the removal of Allahabad high court judge, justice Yashwant Varma, was never admitted in the Rajya Sabha on account of being “defective”, the Lok Sabha speaker’s office has told the Supreme Court, marking the latest twist surrounding the sensational case following the discovery of wads of cash in his official residence in Delhi last year.

The top court was examining the plea of justice Varma finding fault with the speaker’s decision to unilaterally proceed with the inquiry on August 12, 2025 when a similar motion was also in the works in the Rajya Sabha.

On December 16, the court had sought the response of both Houses of Parliament, being prima facie satisfied about the grounds of challenge raised in the petition.

The response filed by the speaker’s office said that soon after the motion was presented in the Rajya Sabha, a communication was sent to the Lok Sabha, claiming that the same was “defective” and was never admitted in the first place. Acting on this information, the LS speaker admitted the motion on August 11 and proceeded under section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 by constituting an inquiry committee headed by a Supreme Court judge.

“At the time when Chairman, Rajya Sabha intimated the House about the motion having been received, neither any scrutiny of motion was done nor any decision about admission of motion by Chairman was taken. No decision to admit the motion was taken by Rajya Sabha Chairman nor any order of admission is passed by him either while intimating the House or thereafter,” stated the response filed by Lok Sabha secretary general Utpal Kumar Singh on January 1.

On July 21, then vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned on health grounds, hours after he presided over the first day of the monsoon session in the Rajya Sabha. Earlier that day, he had announced that he had received notice of motion to constitute a committee for the removal of justice Varma, signed by more than 50 members — as is constitutionally required for such a motion.

At the time, HT had reported that all 63 MPs who signed the notice were from the Opposition parties and the National Democratic Alliance had no idea that such a notice was being prepared. It had also reported that Dhankhar’s move to kickstart the impeachment mechanism took the government, which wanted the process to go through the Lok Sabha, by surprise, and it was the trigger that prompted the abrupt resignation.

Following that, the Rajya Sabha secretary general presented the motion before the deputy chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh, along with a report stating that the same was found “defective in many scores”. The deputy chairman decided “not to admit” the motion on August 11, and the following day, the speaker admitted the motion presented by 146 members of the Lok Sabha, the response said.

Taking up the response, a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chadra Sharma said, “Prima facie we are not with you (justice Varma) on the construction of proviso and on the power of the deputy chairman to deny admission of the motion.”

The court was responding to arguments by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the judge that the proviso to section 3(2) of the 1968 Act requires a joint committee to be formed in the event a motion is given in both Houses on the same day.

The court said, “We need to see the intention of the legislature in providing the proviso to section 3(2). If one House rejects and another admits and a committee is constituted, we have to read it that way. If both Houses admit, only then a joint committee is to be formed by speaker and chairman. But if one House rejects, where is the bar on the Lok Sabha to constitute a committee.”

The court clarified with an illustration that if Rohatgi’s argument is accepted, then a situation may arise when one House can try to “scuttle” the motion being admitted in the other House by moving a motion that gets dismissed for want of the requisite numerical strength - 50 members in case of RS and 100 members for LS.

Rohatgi further argued that the chairman on July 21 acknowledged the receipt of the motion which is “deemed” admission and the deputy chairman could not review the same. The bench said, “Has the chairman recorded a finding of admission? He only says that the motion meets the numerical strength.”

The bench observed that the Constitution’s Article 91 allows the deputy chairman to step into the shoes of the chairman in his absence and in this case, the chairman’s office stood vacant, which stood on a higher footing.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Lok Sabha speaker office, produced all the relevant documents including the note prepared by RS secretary general citing “defects”. Rohatgi sought a copy of the same, claiming that even the RS secretariat wrote to him refusing to disclose the reasons for rejecting the motion.

The bench, on going through the RS secretary general note, observed, “It seems he has entered into the merits. If this motion was to be admitted, the petitioner would be entitled to a joint committee. What is the problem in giving him a copy?”

The court posted the matter on Thursday to enable supply of the required documents, and said, “There is something in the secretary general’s note which should not be there. There is some infirmity and we need to hear the petitioner if it goes to the extent that the committee should not be there.”

The RS secretariat has not filed any response. However, the LS secretary general said that after presentation of motion, it is scrutinised and only when the speaker or chairman is satisfied, the motion is admitted, both being independent and separate actions.

The LSsecretary general urged the court not to interfere with the ongoing removal proceedings against justice Varma, citing the bar under Article 122 of the Constitution that bars validity of any proceeding in Parliament to be called in question on ground of any procedural irregularity.

The committee constituted by the LS speaker comprises Supreme Court’s justice Aravind Kumar, chief justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava of the Madras high court, and senior advocate BV Acharya. This committee has already issued notice to justice Varma and asked him to submit his statement in defence of the charges by January 12, 2026 and to physically appear on January 24.

In March last year, currency notes stacked in a sack were found after a fire at the residence of justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi high court. Following an in-house panel probe, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna recommended action against the judge to the Prime Minister and President.