Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Justice Varma’s Impeachment Plea

Reserving its verdict, the Supreme Court on Wednesday considered a plea filed by Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma, who is facing impeachment proceedings linked to the cash discovery controversy.

Challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision, the petition questions the constitution of a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Hearing detailed arguments from all sides, a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma chose to reserve its judgment. Declining relief, the court also rejected Justice Varma’s plea seeking more time to appear before the inquiry committee.

Representing Justice Varma, senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal sought an extension to file a written response before the committee. Submitting that one extension had already been granted, he requested additional time to prepare submissions. Rejecting the plea, the Justice Datta-led Bench directed compliance within the existing timeline.

“You appear. File written submissions by Monday. Judgment reserved,” the apex court said.

Inquiry Schedule Explained

Seeking Justice Varma’s response in November 2025, the inquiry committee had earlier granted an extension until January 12, 2026. Directing further action, the committee also requested that Justice Varma appear before it on January 24.

Grounds Raised in the Petition

Questioning the procedure adopted, Justice Varma’s writ petition argues that members introduced impeachment notices simultaneously in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

Alleging procedural irregularity, the plea contends that the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted the inquiry committee without waiting for the Rajya Sabha Chairman’s decision or holding mandatory joint consultations.

Referring to the proviso under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, the petition maintains that authorities can form a committee only after both Houses admit the motions and the Speaker and the Chairman act jointly.

Opposing the plea, the Lok Sabha Secretariat argued that the Rajya Sabha did not admit the impeachment motion.

Pointing to developments, the Lok Sabha Secretariat stated that the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the motion on August 11, 2025, following the resignation of then Chairman and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar.

Appearing for parliamentary functionaries, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the proviso aims solely to prevent the constitution of parallel inquiry committees.

Emerging in March 2025, the controversy centres on the alleged discovery of burnt cash in an outhouse of Justice Varma’s official residence while he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge.

Noting that he was absent at the time of the fire, a Supreme Court-appointed in-house committee later concluded that he exercised ‘secret or active control’ over the cash.

Following the inquiry report, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna recommended the initiation of removal proceedings. Subsequently, impeachment notices backed by 145 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members were moved in Parliament, leading to the formation of the inquiry committee now under judicial scrutiny.

Also ReadL: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo Takes Oath As Chief Justice Of Patna High Court