INTRODUCTION
The apex court, on 16 December 2025, sent a formal notice to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha regarding the lapse in the procedural inquiry for the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge of the Allahabad High Court. A divisional bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih highlighted the lack of joint consortium between the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha and has asked both the houses to give the validity of their impeachment process.
BACKGROUND
The incident arose when a fire broke out in the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma in Delhi, which led to the discovery of unaccounted cash at his residence. Justice Verma has denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. However, the in-house counsel, after finding sufficient substance, asked him to resign from his post as a judge, but he refused to resign. Thus, this prompted the Parliament to initiate a motion for impeachment of the justice on 21 July 2025 in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
As there was a motion initiated by both the houses on the same day, there was a mandatory requirement that a Committee be constituted jointly by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha per section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. However, the Lok Sabha speaker on August 12, 2025, without waiting for the Rajya Sabha’s admission or consulting with the RS Chairman, thus the process is alleged to be against the statutory law.
KEY POINTS
Statutory Violation
Justice Yashwant Verma noted the breach of the statutory provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. He contends that the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla acted “unilaterally” by constituting a three-member inquiry committee on August 12, 2025, without the chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.
Judicial Observation
The Supreme Court has looked into the arguments. It also highlighted how there could be a procedural lapse despite having several MPs and legal experts in the court, and has the parliament to get back with the reasons within the stipulated time.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme Court has now asked both houses of the parliament to give their reasons for unilateral decisions, which shall be returned by 7 January 2026 and shall be heard by the court on the same date.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court has sought detailed responses from the parliamentary secretariats to determine if the inquiry committee was valid. While the earlier committee had scheduled Justice Varma’s appearance on 24 January 2026, the apex court has listed the matter for further hearing on January 7, 2026, to scrutinize the constitutional, statutory, and procedural safeguards governing the removal of a sitting judge.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: Sharanya M
