SC flags legal grey area on whether LS impeachment survives RS rejection

Supreme Court says rejection of an impeachment motion in one House may not block proceedings in the other, as it hears Justice Yashwant Varma's challenge to the inquiry panel

The Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that the rejection of an impeachment motion in one House of Parliament does not automatically invalidate a similar motion admitted in the other, while examining a challenge by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma to the inquiry initiated against him.

 

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing Justice Varma’s plea questioning the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The judge has assailed the move on procedural grounds, arguing that the Speaker acted unilaterally despite impeachment notices having been moved in both Houses of Parliament on the same day.

 

Justice Varma contends that the proviso to Section 3 of the Act requires consultation between the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman when impeachment motions are initiated concurrently in both Houses, and that a committee can be formed only after both motions are admitted. Since the Rajya Sabha did not ultimately admit the motion, he argues, the inquiry process stands vitiated.

 

The Lok Sabha Secretariat, however, has taken the position that the proviso is inapplicable because the Rajya Sabha motion was not admitted. It has argued that once the Upper House declined to take up the motion, there was no legal impediment to the Speaker proceeding independently.

 

Appearing for Justice Varma, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the sequence of events disclosed serious procedural lapses. He argued that the impeachment notices were submitted in both Houses on the same day and that the Speaker ought to have awaited the Rajya Sabha Chairman’s decision.

 

Rohatgi further contended that communications from the Rajya Sabha Chairman acknowledging the motion and referring to proceedings under the Act amounted to an implied admission, which could not later be undone by the Deputy Chairman.

 

The Bench was not persuaded, at least at a preliminary stage, that rejection of the motion in one House necessarily defeats proceedings in the other. Justice Datta observed that the proviso mandates a joint committee only when both Houses admit the motion, and is silent on the consequences if one House declines to do so. In such a situation, he said, a purposive reading of the statute would be required.

 

“If one House does not admit the motion, where is the bar on the other House proceeding?” the Court asked, adding that it did not prima facie agree with the submission that the Lok Sabha motion must fail merely because the Rajya Sabha motion was rejected.

 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union and the Lok Sabha Secretariat, countered that there was no admission, express or implied, by the Rajya Sabha Chairman. He said the Chairman had merely sought verification as to whether a similar motion had been moved in the Lok Sabha, without taking a decision either way.

 

The Court said it would continue hearing the matter on Thursday, focusing on whether the absence of formal consultation between the Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman violated Justice Varma’s rights to warrant interference under Article 32. It also flagged tentative concerns about certain internal communications relied upon by the government, while clarifying that it would assess whether these warranted judicial intervention.

 

Justice Varma has been facing impeachment proceedings following corruption allegations that surfaced after a fire at his official residence in March 2025, which reportedly led to the recovery of unaccounted cash. He has denied the allegations.

 

An in-house inquiry ordered by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna culminated in a report recommending his resignation or removal. After he declined to step down, the report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister, triggering the parliamentary process. The Supreme Court had earlier declined to interfere with the in-house inquiry report.

 

Subsequently, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted the impeachment motion and constituted a statutory inquiry committee, a move now under challenge. The deadline for Justice Varma’s written response to the committee has been extended until January 12, 2026, and he has been asked to appear before it on January 24.

 

Legal experts said Wednesday’s hearing underscored that the case turns on a close reading of the Judges (Inquiry) Act and unresolved questions about parliamentary procedure.

 

Tushar Agarwal, founder and managing partner of C.L.A.P. Juris, said the core issues before the Court include whether the Lok Sabha could proceed unilaterally despite same-day notices in both Houses, how the proviso to Section 3(2) should be interpreted, and whether the Rajya Sabha motion was ever “admitted” to trigger the requirement of a joint committee.

 

According to him, the statute does not expressly bar the Lok Sabha from proceeding if the Rajya Sabha rejects the motion, leaving room for purposive interpretation by the Court.

 

Similarly, Rishabh Gandhi, founder of Rishabh Gandhi and Advocates, said the Bench was effectively testing whether Parliament followed its own procedural safeguards before initiating impeachment.

 

He noted that the joint constitution of a probe committee is mandatory only if both Houses admit the motion on the same day, and that the present dispute hinges on whether that statutory trigger was ever crossed.

 

Gandhi added that impeachment is deliberately designed as a “constitutional obstacle course”, and the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could clarify how impeachment motions in the two Houses interact and the extent to which courts can review Parliament’s internal processes.