Photo of burnt cash found outside Justice Yashwant Varma(L), Supreme Court in New Delhi
Credit: PTI Photos
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it seems there is some infirmity in the Lok Sabha Speaker's constitution of the inquiry committee to probe allegations against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in a cash haul case, and it would examine whether it is so grave, so as to warrant the termination of the proceedings.
Considering a writ petition, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said that the court was also not in agreement with the submissions of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Justice Varma, that the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha was not competent to reject the motion following the resignation of Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar.
“Let us be clear, prima facie we are not with you that, in the absence of the Chairman, whether the deputy chairman could have…very limited point is this that had the Rajya Sabha also admitted the motion you would have had the benefit of a joint committee,” the bench told the counsel.
“That it is so prejudicial to your interest that we under Article 32, should interfere, we are giving you time to ponder on this point and come back tomorrow to tell us,” the bench told the counsel.
The court had on December 16, 2025 issued notice on Justice Varma's plea challenging the constitution of an inquiry committee by Lok Sabha Speaker to probe corruption charges against him.
Rohatgi submitted that if motions are moved simultaneously in both the houses, then a committee can be formed only jointly by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
He pointed out the motion in the Rajya Sabha was rejected by the deputy chairman on August 11, and the committee was formed on August 12 by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
However, the motions in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha were moved on the same day, July 11, the counsel said.
He contended after one house rejected the motion, the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have constituted the committee.
"If one house has rejected a motion, then where is the bar on the Lok Sabha in constituting the committee,'' the bench asked.
Rohatgi submitted that since both motions were moved on the same day, both of them require to be admitted, and only then, the committee can be formed, that too jointly by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
The court fixed the matter for consideration on Thursday.
The inquiry committee comprised Supreme Court judge Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate from Karnataka, B V Acharya.
Justice Varma assailed the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision in unilaterally constituting a committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 for making an investigation into the grounds on which the petitioner's removal as a judge of the high court has been sought, as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A three-member judges inquiry panel, formed by the Supreme Court, earlier found substance in allegations of presence piles of burnt and unburnt cash at the residence of Justice Varma in March, 2025 after examining more than 55 witnesses. The panel indicted Justice Varma for his misconduct, resulting in recommendation for his removal.