SC examines Rajya Sabha Chairman’s role in Justice Yashwant Varma removal case
Context
The case relates to proceedings for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court.
Allegations concern the recovery of burnt currency from his official residence in March 2025.
Justice Varma has challenged the unilateral constitution of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
Key constitutional and procedural issues
The Supreme Court examined whether the notice of motion for removal could still be placed before the current Rajya Sabha Chairman, C. P. Radhakrishnan.
The Court orally suggested that if the Rajya Sabha Chairman agrees with the Lok Sabha Speaker, the matter may end procedurally.
The Bench, headed by Justice Dipankar Datta, reserved its judgment.
Composition and validity of the inquiry committee
The Court observed that no procedural illegality existed in the committee’s composition.
The committee includes:
One Supreme Court judge
One Chief Justice of a High Court
One eminent jurist
This composition aligns with statutory requirements under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Arguments by the Union Government
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued:
Justice Varma failed to show real and demonstrable prejudice caused by the committee’s formation.
Even if the Rajya Sabha Chairman reconsiders and agrees with the same committee, the situation remains unchanged.
The final decision on removal lies with Parliament, where all MPs vote.
Arguments by Justice Varma
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued:
Notices of motion were submitted on the same day (July 21, 2025) to both Houses.
The then Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned the same day.
The Deputy Chairman rejected the RS notice, while the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted it and formed the committee.
Under the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, when notices are given on the same day, both Houses must admit them and a joint committee must be constituted.
Failure of both Houses to apply their minds caused procedural prejudice to the judge.
Removal of judges in India: High Court judge vs Supreme Court judge
Component | High Court judge | Supreme Court judge |
Constitutional provision | Article 217 read with Article 124(4) | Article 124(4) |
Grounds for removal | Proven misbehaviour or incapacity | Proven misbehaviour or incapacity |
Who can initiate motion | Members of either House of Parliament | Members of either House of Parliament |
Notice requirement | Same as Supreme Court judge | Same as High Court judge |
Minimum MPs required to sign notice | 100 MPs (Lok Sabha) or 50 MPs (Rajya Sabha) | 100 MPs (Lok Sabha) or 50 MPs (Rajya Sabha) |
Authority to admit motion | Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha) | Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha) |
Relevant statute | Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 | Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 |
Inquiry committee composition | 1 Supreme Court judge, 1 Chief Justice of a High Court, 1 distinguished jurist | Same composition |
Who constitutes committee | Speaker or Chairman admitting the motion (jointly in specific situations) | Same |
Nature of inquiry | Quasi-judicial inquiry into charges | Quasi-judicial inquiry into charges |
Opportunity to judge | Full opportunity to defend; principles of natural justice apply | Same |
Report of committee | Submitted to Speaker/Chairman | Same |
Binding nature of report | Recommendatory, not binding | Recommendatory, not binding |
Next step after adverse report | Motion taken up for discussion in Parliament | Same |
Voting requirement in each House | Special majority: (i) Majority of total membership and (ii) Not less than two-thirds of members present and voting | Same |
Houses involved | Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha | Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha |
Voting sequence | Either House first, then the other | Same |
Final authority for removal | President of India after parliamentary address | President of India after parliamentary address |
Role of President | Issues order of removal | Issues order of removal |
Role of judiciary during process | No judicial review on merits; limited review on procedure and mala fides | Same |
Suspension during inquiry | No explicit constitutional provision; judge may be advised not to perform judicial work | Same |
Past removals | No High Court judge has been successfully removed so far | No Supreme Court judge has been successfully removed so far |
Key case-law relevance | Judicial review limited to procedural compliance | Judicial review limited to procedural compliance |
Federal aspect | Though judge belongs to a State High Court, removal is a Union parliamentary process | Entirely Union-level process |
When notices of motion are given in both Houses on the same day, the inquiry committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, after admission of the motions in both Houses. Reliance placed on Section 2(2) of the Act:
| ||
Prelims Practice MCQs
Q. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, an inquiry committee for removal of a High Court judge consists of:
(a) Three sitting judges of the Supreme Court
(b) A Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a jurist
(c) Two MPs and one Supreme Court judge
(d) The Speaker and the Chairman jointly
Answer: (b)
Explanation: The Act prescribes a three-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.
Q. Consider the following statements regarding removal of judges in India:
The final decision on removal rests with Parliament.
An inquiry committee’s findings are binding on the Houses.
Both Houses must vote separately with a special majority.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (b)
Explanation: The committee’s report is recommendatory. Final removal requires a special majority in both Houses.