New Delhi: Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma questioning the legality of the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute an inquiry committee under the Judges Act, 1968, following an impeachment motion moved against him in Parliament.A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and S C Sharma concluded hearings after listening to detailed submissions from senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Justice Varma, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both Houses of Parliament. The case places judicial independence, parliamentary privilege and constitutional procedure in sharp focus, with implications for how impeachment mechanisms against judges are initiated and scrutinised.
At the heart of the dispute lies the Speaker’s decision to admit the impeachment motion and proceed with the formation of a three-member inquiry committee as mandated by the 1968 Act. Justice Varma’s challenge does not directly contest the merits of the allegations against him but targets the process adopted at the threshold, arguing that the Speaker acted without satisfying mandatory constitutional and statutory preconditions.
Counsel for Justice Varma contended that the Speaker’s role under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, read with the Judges Act, is not merely administrative. They argued that the Speaker is required to apply an independent mind to the material placed before her to determine whether the motion meets the standard of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity,” rather than acting mechanically on the numerical sufficiency of signatures from Members of Parliament. According to the submissions, the decision to trigger a formal inquiry carries grave consequences for judicial reputation and independence and therefore demands a higher threshold of scrutiny.
The petition also questioned whether procedural safeguards envisaged under the Act and established constitutional conventions were followed before the inquiry committee was constituted. Justice Varma’s lawyers maintained that failure to adhere strictly to these safeguards would render the entire impeachment process vulnerable to challenge, regardless of the outcome of the inquiry.
Opposing the plea, the Solicitor General urged the court to exercise restraint, emphasising the doctrine of separation of powers. He argued that Parliament has been constitutionally entrusted with the authority to initiate impeachment proceedings against judges, and the Speaker’s decision falls squarely within the legislative domain. Judicial interference at this preliminary stage, he submitted, would amount to encroachment into parliamentary privilege and disrupt a carefully balanced constitutional scheme.
The government’s submissions underscored that the Judges Act lays down a clear, step-by-step framework once a valid motion is admitted, leaving limited scope for judicial review until the process culminates in findings by the inquiry committee and consideration by Parliament. Any attempt to stall or scrutinise the process midstream, it was argued, could set a precedent that weakens Parliament’s oversight role.
During the hearings, the Bench engaged with both sides on the extent to which courts can review procedural decisions taken by constitutional authorities. The judges explored whether the Speaker’s satisfaction in admitting an impeachment motion is justiciable and, if so, the standard of review that should apply. Questions were also raised on whether premature judicial intervention might undermine public confidence in both institutions by creating a perception of judges shielding one of their own from scrutiny.
Legal observers note that impeachment of higher judiciary members in India has been rare, with only a handful of motions reaching the stage of a formal inquiry. The process is designed to balance accountability with independence, ensuring that judges are protected from frivolous or politically motivated charges while remaining answerable for proven misconduct. The present case tests that balance by asking where the judiciary should draw the line when its own members are subjected to parliamentary action.