The Supreme Court said that it prima facie disagreed with Justice Yashwant Varma’s claim that Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had overstepped the statutory rigour of the Judges (Inquiry) Act by “unilaterally” constituting a committee to examine allegations about the sacks of half-burnt currency found on the premises of the judge’s official residence in Delhi in March 2025.
After the allegations against the judge arose, two motions for his removal – one in the Lok Sabha and another in the Rajya Sabha – were submitted on July 21, 2025.
While the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the notice of motion, a day later, on August 12, 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted a three-member inquiry committee under the Act.
A Supreme Court in-house panel found him guilty, and then CJI Sanjiv Khanna urged his removal.
Justice Yashwant Varma, former Delhi High Court judge was transferred to Allahabad High Court.
The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma orally expressed its prima facie disagreement with the contention raised by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma, that the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman had no authority to “step into the shoes” of the Chairman and reject the notice of motion submitted in the Upper House.
During the hour-long hearing, Mr. Rohatgi referred to the first proviso of Section 3(2) of the Act, which mandates that in such cases, the inquiry committee had to be “constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman” following the admission of the motions in both Houses.
In the present case, Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the LS Speaker had no authority to form the panel “unilaterally” on August 12.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Justice Varma, said that separate notices of the removal motion had been given on the same day, July 21, 2025, to the then RS Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, and to the LS Speaker. Mr. Dhankhar had resigned the same day. The notice was rejected by the Deputy Chairman on August 11. The next day, Mr. Birla had admitted the notice submitted to him and constituted the inquiry committee.
Justice Dipankar Datta, however, queried, “But where is the bar on the Speaker from constituting a committee if the Rajya Sabha has rejected the motion… Are you saying if one House rejects the motion, it should be rejected in both Houses?”
At this point, Mr. Rohatgi questioned the competency of the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to reject the notice of motion, purportedly leaving the field open for the Speaker to constitute the inquiry committee.
He said the then-Rajya Sabha Chairman, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankar, had resigned on July 21, after receiving the notice of motion without formally admitting it.
“If the office of the Chairman was vacant, somebody had to step in,” Justice Datta responded.
“But he [Deputy Chairman] steps in only to regulate the House,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted.
The court scheduled the case for further hearing on January 8.
