Justice Yashwant Varma Moves Supreme Court Against Parliamentary Probe; Notice Issued to Lok Sabha Speaker

Supreme Court issued notice to the Lok Sabha on Justice Yashwant Varma’s Article 32 plea challenging the Speaker’s unilateral constitution of a judges’ inquiry committee and listed the matter for hearing in January 2026

Update: 2025-12-16 09:18 GMT

SC issues notice to Lok Sabha on Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma’s plea challenging unilateral constitution of a parliamentary inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Lok Sabha on a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the constitution of a Parliamentary inquiry committee set up to investigate corruption charges against him.

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih has listed the matter for hearing on January 7, 2026.


Justice Varma has approached the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, through AoR Vaibhav Niti assailing the action of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in unilaterally constituting a three-member committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to inquire into the grounds on which his removal as a High Court judge has been sought.

At the heart of the challenge is the petitioner’s contention that the Speaker acted in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Justice Varma has argued that notices of motion seeking his removal were submitted in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day, July 21, 2025, and therefore, the law required a joint action by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

According to the petition, while both motions satisfied the statutory requirement of being signed by the requisite number of Members of Parliament, only the Lok Sabha motion was admitted. On August 12, 2025, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha admitted the motion and proceeded to constitute a three-member inquiry committee. The motion in the Rajya Sabha, however, was never admitted.

Justice Varma has contended that under the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when motions are presented in both Houses on the same day, neither presiding officer can act unilaterally. A committee, he argues, can be constituted only if both motions are admitted and only through joint consultation between the Speaker and the Chairman.

The unilateral constitution of the committee, the petition claims, is therefore contrary to the statute and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petition also challenges the subsequent steps taken by the inquiry committee. A notice dated November 26, 2025, issued by the committee, required Justice Varma to file his written statement of defence and appear before it. A later communication dated December 6, 2025, directed him to submit his defence by January 12, 2026, and to appear before the committee on January 24, 2026.

Justice Varma has sought quashing of these notices, arguing that they are consequential to an illegal and unconstitutional action.

Another key ground raised in the petition relates to the alleged reliance on an in-house committee report dated May 3, 2025. Justice Varma has pointed out that the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated August 7, 2025, had expressly clarified that findings of such in-house committee reports cannot be relied upon for the purpose of initiating removal proceedings against a judge.

Despite this, the petition claims that the motion admitted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha was entirely based on the findings of the in-house committee report, rendering the admission of the motion itself unlawful.

Justice Varma has emphasised that the procedure under the Judges (Inquiry) Act is not a routine legislative exercise but flows from the constitutional mandate under Article 124(5), which governs the removal of judges of constitutional courts. He has argued that such procedures must be interpreted strictly, as they are central to safeguarding judicial independence and preventing arbitrary or politically motivated actions.

The petition further submits that the statutory scheme is designed to recognise the co-equal constitutional status of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and to avoid incongruous situations where one House proceeds while the other rejects a motion.

Justice Varma has sought a declaration that the Speaker’s action dated August 12, 2025, admitting the Lok Sabha motion and constituting the inquiry committee is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 124, 217 and 218 of the Constitution. He has also sought setting aside of the committee’s constitution and all consequential notices issued to him.

Case Title: X v. O/O Speaker of the House of the People

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing Date: December 16, 2025

Tags:    

Similar News