Supreme Court on Friday refused to intervene in impeachment-linked proceedings against Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, rejecting his plea challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges Act, 1968, over allegations arising from a cash-discovery row. The ruling removes a key legal hurdle to Parliament’s statutory process for examining charges of misbehaviour against a sitting judge.The petition filed by Yashwant Varma questioned the Speaker’s authority to trigger the inquiry mechanism at this stage and sought to halt the committee’s work. A Bench of the Supreme Court of India declined relief, signalling that the statutory framework governing judicial accountability permits the Speaker to act once a motion supported by the requisite number of lawmakers is admitted.
The controversy stems from allegations that surfaced after cash was discovered at premises linked to the judge, prompting opposition and treasury benches alike to press for scrutiny through the constitutional route available for removing judges of the higher judiciary. Following the admission of the motion in the Lok Sabha, the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted a three-member panel as mandated by the 1968 law to examine the charges and submit findings to Parliament.
Justice Varma’s challenge argued that the Speaker’s decision was premature and procedurally flawed, and that the committee’s constitution violated principles of natural justice. His counsel also contended that parallel proceedings could prejudice the judge before a full hearing on admissibility and merits. The apex court was not persuaded, emphasising that the Judges Act lays down a step-by-step process that begins with the formation of an inquiry committee to assess whether the allegations warrant further parliamentary action.
The Bench underscored that judicial review at this juncture would amount to stalling a constitutionally sanctioned mechanism. It observed that the inquiry panel’s role is fact-finding, not determinative, and that adequate safeguards exist for the judge to present a defence during the inquiry. The court also noted that Parliament, not the judiciary, ultimately decides on removal, reinforcing the separation of powers embedded in the Constitution.
Legal analysts said the order aligns with earlier precedent that discourages courts from interfering with internal parliamentary processes unless there is a clear violation of constitutional limits. The decision places the spotlight back on the inquiry committee, which will examine evidence, record testimonies and submit a report to the Speaker. Only if the committee finds the charges proved can a motion for removal be taken up for debate and voting in both Houses, requiring a special majority.
The case has renewed discussion on judicial accountability and the balance between independence and oversight. While impeachment is designed to be an exceptional remedy, lawmakers across parties have argued that allegations involving unexplained cash necessitate transparent scrutiny to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. At the same time, members of the Bar have cautioned against trial by media and stressed that due process must be scrupulously followed to protect the dignity of the institution and the rights of the individual judge.
The inquiry committee’s composition, typically comprising a Supreme Court judge, a chief justice of a high court, and a distinguished jurist, is intended to ensure independence and expertise. Its proceedings are governed by statutory timelines and procedural rules, including the opportunity for the judge to cross-examine witnesses and submit written explanations. The panel’s findings, however, are recommendatory; Parliament retains discretion in acting on the report.