'No prejudice caused to Justice Varma': Supreme Court reviews parliamentary committee in cash haul row

The Supreme Court is expected to deliberate further before pronouncing its verdict on Justice Varma’s petition challenging the parliamentary inquiry.

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, heard arguments in Justice Yashwant Varma’s petition challenging the impeachment motion initiated against him following the 2025 cash haul controversy at his official residence.

The Lok Sabha Secretary General, in its reply, told the apex court that the petition was “built on incorrect factual foundation” and asserted that no prejudice was caused to the judge by the formation of the parliamentary committee.

The affidavit, accessed exclusively by CNN-News18, stated that the Supreme Court cannot question the Speaker’s decision to constitute the inquiry committee, calling it part of “proceedings in Parliament.” It added, “Section 3 of the Judges Inquiry Act only applies when the motion is admitted in both houses.”

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Justice Varma, argued that the committee constituted by the Speaker cannot be considered a “joint committee” because the impeachment motion moved in the Rajya Sabha had been rejected by the Deputy Chairman on August 11, 2025.

“When a motion is moved in both houses on the same day, both houses need to admit it. If motions are not admitted by both houses when moved on the same day, a committee can’t be formed. The committee was formed by the Speaker, it is not a joint committee,” said the advocate.

The affidavit also rejected Justice Varma’s allegation that the Speaker relied on the Chief Justice of India’s in-house panel report, stating that MPs independently formed their opinion and the Speaker merely recorded the contents of the motion.

On March 14, 2025, a fire had broken out in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence. Following this, fire and police personnel reportedly found half-burnt stacks of Rs 500 notes, which were later authenticated on video. The Parliament had initiated an impeachment motion against Justice Varma on July 21, 2025.

A Supreme Court-appointed three-judge in-house panel had examined 55 witnesses over 10 days and concluded that Justice Varma and/or his family had covert or active control over the storeroom. The panel noted that the cash had been removed in the early hours of March 15, implicating his staff in the act. The inquiry had deemed the misconduct grave enough to warrant impeachment, with then CJI Sanjiv Khanna forwarding the recommendation to the President and Prime Minister.

However, Justice Varma denied any involvement, describing the allegations as a conspiracy, and criticised procedural irregularities in the inquiry. He later filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the report as unconstitutional and procedurally flawed. The court, nonetheless, rejected his petition on August 7, 2025, noting that his conduct “did not inspire confidence,” effectively supporting the recommendation for his removal.

During Wednesday’s proceedings, Justice Datta examined the legal implications of the proviso in the Judges Inquiry Act, particularly whether a committee could be formed if one house rejects a motion.

Citing a hypothetical scenario, he questioned Rohatgi, “Let us assume that Lok Sabha is in favour of impeaching a judge… Rajya Sabha members oppose. If a motion is moved in both houses on the same day, one is rejected, does it bar the other house from proceeding?”

Advocate Rohatgi clarified that the law only allows for the formation of a joint committee if both houses admit the motion. “In my case, one motion was rejected. No committee could have been formed, as one house rejected it, and since both houses did not admit the motion, the formation of a joint committee was not possible,” he replied.

Justice Datta highlighted the importance of reading the proviso purposively, noting that it bars the formation of a joint committee unless both houses admit the motion, but remains silent on whether the admissible motion in one house could proceed independently.

The Supreme Court is expected to deliberate further before pronouncing its verdict on Justice Varma’s petition challenging the parliamentary inquiry.