In this image taken from www.allahabadhighcourt.in is a profile of Justice Yashwant Varma.
| Photo Credit: PTI
The Supreme Court on Friday (January 16, 2026) refused to grant any relief to Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, who had challenged the “unilateral” setting up of an inquiry committee by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to examine allegations of burnt currency found on his residential premises in March last year.
A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta rejected the petition filed by Justice Varma, anonymously identified as ‘X’ in the cause title, for lack of any merit. The Bench had reserved the case for judgment on January 8.
The court found no procedural irregularity or illegality in the setting up of the three-member committee of Supreme Court judge, Justice Aravind Kumar, Chief Justice of Madras High Court M.M. Shrivastava and senior advocate Vasudeva Acharya under the Judges (Inquiry) Act on August 12, 2025.
The committee was set up on the basis of a notice of motion submitted by over 140 Lok Sabha MPs for the removal of Justice Varma.
The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had argued that the judge concerned was unable to show bias on the part of the authority who constituted the committee.
Mr. Mehta had contended that the judge had no vested right under the Judges (Inquiry) Act to seek the formation of an inquiry panel jointly by both the Chairman and the Speaker.
The court had pointed out that ultimately the report of the inquiry committee would be placed in the Parliament, and it would be for the MPs of both Houses to debate if the judge was to be removed or not.
Justuce Varma had contended that the constitution of the committee under Section 3(2) of the 1968 Act violated both his right to be treated and protected equally by the law.
The judge had argued that though notices of motion for removal were given in both Houses of the Parliament on the same day, the Speaker constituted the committee unilaterally. The Act mandated joint consultation with the Chairman.
On July 21, MPs had given separate notices of motion before both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha seeking the removal of Justice Varma. Both motions had met the numerical requirement. While the notice submitted to Mr. Dhankhar had signatures of 63 Opposition members, the one submitted to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla received bipartisan backing.
Mr. Dhankar resigned unexpectedly on July 21. It was not clear whether he had admitted the motion, though he had clarified that he had received it.
On August 11, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected the notice of motion in the Upper House.
However, Mr. Birla, on the very next day, admitted the notice of motion before him and constituted the three-member inquiry committee.
“The Speaker has acted in clear derogation of the proviso of Section 3(2) of the 1968 Act by unilaterally constituting a committee on August 12, 2025 after admitting a motion given before the Lok Sabha in July 21, as on the very same day a separate motion was given in the Rajya Sabha which had not been admitted,” Justice Varma’s petition had argued.
Published – January 16, 2026 12:20 pm IST
