SC Upholds Judge Varma Inquiry, Criticises Rajya Sabha Secretary General | Quick Digest
The Supreme Court dismissed Justice Yashwant Varma's plea against an impeachment inquiry, simultaneously criticising the Rajya Sabha Secretary General for exceeding his administrative role by commenting on the merits of the impeachment motion. The court clarified the Secretary General's function is purely administrative, not quasi-adjudicatory.
Supreme Court rejected Justice Varma's challenge to impeachment inquiry.
Court criticised Rajya Sabha Secretary General's comments on motion merits.
Secretary General's role deemed administrative, not adjudicatory.
Impeachment motion against Justice Varma followed cash recovery allegations.
SC affirmed Lok Sabha Speaker's right to form inquiry panel independently.
Ruling clarifies parliamentary procedure for judges' impeachment.
The Supreme Court of India on January 16, 2026, delivered a significant ruling by dismissing a petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, who challenged the constitution of a parliamentary committee to inquire into corruption allegations against him. The allegations against Justice Varma arose after unaccounted cash was reportedly found at his official residence during a fire incident.
In a crucial observation, the apex court critically scrutinised the procedure adopted by the Rajya Sabha Secretary General concerning an impeachment motion against Justice Varma. The Secretary General had made a substantive assessment of the impeachment notice, concluding it was 'not in order' and 'non est,' which subsequently led to the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha rejecting the motion.
The Supreme Court firmly stated that the Secretary General's role in such matters is strictly administrative and does not extend to performing quasi-adjudicatory functions by delving into the merits or factual accuracy of an impeachment motion. The Court emphasised that the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, only mandates administrative scrutiny, such as verifying the number of signatories, and does not prescribe a specific format for the notice of motion or require supporting materials at that initial stage.
Justice Varma had argued that a joint committee from both Houses of Parliament was mandatory since impeachment notices were filed in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention, clarifying that the requirement for a joint committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act applies only when motions are *admitted* in both Houses. Since the Rajya Sabha motion was not admitted, the Lok Sabha Speaker was within his rights to constitute an inquiry committee independently.
This ruling clarifies the procedural aspects of impeachment proceedings against judges, asserting the limited administrative role of the Parliament's secretariats and upholding the Speaker's authority to proceed with an inquiry when a motion is admitted in one House.
Read the full story on Quick Digest