Supreme Court upholds Speaker’s inquiry panel move against Justice Varma

On January 8, the bench declined to grant Justice Varma more time to respond to a notice by the committee. He subsequently informed the committee that he was not in Delhi on the day of the incident in March 2025, and that he could not be faulted if the site had not been secured.

The committee members are Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Senior Advocate B V Acharya.

Motions for Justice Varma’s removal were introduced in both Houses of Parliament. While constituting the committee in August 2025, the Speaker said the motion to remove the judge will remain pending until the committee submits its report.

In the Supreme Court, Justice Varma’s petition relied on the first proviso to Section 3 (2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act which contemplates a situation in which notice for impeachment is given in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the same day. In such a case, the clause says “no Committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses; and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman”.

He contended that in his case, since notices were given in both Houses on the same day, a Joint Committee should have been formed by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman, subject to the motion having been admitted in both the Houses; and if the motion fails in any House, the notice given in the other House must also fail.

The court, however, rejected the argument. Writing for the bench, Justice Datta said the proviso “does not contemplate a scenario where a notice of motion is accepted in one House and rejected in the other. To interpret in the manner suggested… would require us to read into it a disabling consequence, namely, that the motion pending in the other House must also necessarily fail. Such an interpretation would amount to judicial legislation, a course we are neither empowered nor inclined to undertake”.

“It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that a proviso cannot be read in a way which nullifies the provision to which it is a proviso, unless such an intention is manifest. The main part of Section 3 (2) vests the power to constitute a Committee in the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, upon admission of the notice of motion. The first proviso cannot be read to curtail this power except in one clearly defined circumstance, namely, the admission of notices in both Houses. In all other cases, the power of the Speaker or the Chairman to constitute a Committee remains unaffected,” the bench said.

It said “there is nothing in the Inquiry Act to suggest that rejection of a motion in one House would render the other House incompetent to proceed in accordance with law”.

After the resignation of then Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, the Deputy Chairman had rejected the motion against Justice Varma. The judge’s plea contended that in the absence of the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman could not have rejected it.

The bench turned down this argument and referred to Article 91 of the Constitution which says “while the office of Chairman is vacant, or during any period when the Vice-President is acting as, or discharging the functions of, President, the duties of the office shall be performed by the Deputy Chairman…”. It said “the duties that the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman (in case of a vacancy in the former office) perform under the Inquiry Act cannot be separated from the office that they hold as the Presiding Officer of the House.”