Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday opposed before the Supreme Court the constitution of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker to probe corruption charges against him, arguing that the move violated the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 124(5) of the Constitution.

Appearing for Justice Varma, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi told a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma that when impeachment motions are initiated in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day, the law mandates a joint process.

In such circumstances, he argued, an inquiry committee can be constituted only jointly by both Houses of Parliament and not unilaterally by one.

Referring to the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rohatgi submitted that impeachment motions against Justice Varma were moved in both Houses on July 21, 2025.

He contended that when notices of motion are given in both Houses on the same day, no committee shall be constituted unless the motion is admitted in both Houses.

In that eventuality, the Act contemplates the formation of a joint committee by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

“In the present case, one motion was rejected. Therefore, the committee constituted thereafter is non est in law,” Rohatgi said.

He pointed out that the motion in the Rajya Sabha, which had earlier been admitted by the Chairperson, was later rejected by the deputy Chairman on August 11.

Despite this, the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted an inquiry committee on August 12. Rohatgi described this committee as “non-est” in law and also assailed the decision of the deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to reject a motion that had already been admitted.

The senior lawyer argued that once two motions are properly moved on the same day, the statute requires a joint process.

If both motions are not admitted, he submitted, the entire exercise must fail. He further questioned the constitution of the three-member committee formed by the Lok Sabha Speaker under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, contending that it violated the mandatory constitutional procedure.

Rohatgi emphasised that for the removal of a judge, Parliament must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed under the Act, which requires a motion signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.

Once such a motion is admitted, a committee is to be constituted to conduct an inquiry akin to a departmental proceeding, followed by debate in the House.

The bench, however, questioned whether the rejection of a motion in one House would automatically invalidate proceedings initiated in the other.

Referring to the affidavit filed by the Lok Sabha, Rohatgi stated that the deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha had rejected the motion on August 11, while the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted the committee on August 12.

The court observed that the Judges (Inquiry) Act does not expressly state that if one House rejects a motion, the other House is barred from proceeding.

“Where is the bar under the proviso for the Lok Sabha to appoint a committee if the Rajya Sabha rejects the motion?” Justice Datta asked.

Responding to the query, Rohatgi reiterated that once motions are moved simultaneously in both Houses, the law mandates a joint process, and unilateral action by one House is impermissible.

The hearing is underway in the matter. Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt wads of currency notes were found at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14.

The Supreme Court had on December 16 agreed to hear his plea challenging the constitution of the inquiry committee and issued notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Secretaries-General of both Houses of Parliament.

Earlier, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had initiated an in-house inquiry and constituted a three-member committee comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman.

The committee submitted its report on May 4, finding Justice Varma guilty of misconduct.

After Justice Varma declined to resign, the Chief Justice of India forwarded the report along with the judge’s response to the President and the Prime Minister, setting the stage for impeachment proceedings.

Subsequently, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted a multi-party motion for Justice Varma’s removal on August 12 and constituted a three-member inquiry committee comprising Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B V Acharya.

Justice Varma has sought quashing of the Speaker’s action, the admission of the motion, and all consequential notices issued by the inquiry committee, contending that the entire process is unconstitutional and contrary to the Judges (Inquiry) Act.