SC Flags Handling of Yashwant Varma Motion in Parliament: 'Let Lok Sabha Speaker, Rajya Sabha Chair Decide'
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday (January 16) raised serious concerns over the role played by the secretary general of the Rajya Sabha in the handling of a notice of motion for the removal of Allahabad high court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. The concerns were raised while dismissing Varma’s plea that challenged the validity of a parliamentary committee constituted by the Lok Sabha speaker to probe corruption charges against him.
The development stems from the broader controversy involving Justice Varma, linked to allegations of unaccounted burnt currency notes found at his official residence in March 2025, which led to parallel removal motions in both Houses of Parliament on July 21, 2025.
According to an article reported in The Hindu, the secretary general went beyond a purely administrative function by preparing a “draft decision” that concluded the notice submitted by Rajya Sabha MPs was inadmissible. This draft formed the basis for the deputy Rajya Sabha chairman's eventual rejection of the motion, deeming that "not all was in order."
Justice Varma, India Today reported, had questioned the committee’s constitution on the ground that the motion seeking his removal was rejected by the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma observed that the secretary general's role is limited to administrative duties and does not extend to quasi-adjudicatory functions.
In the judgment, Justice Datta expressed hope for future restraint by parliamentary secretariats in similar cases: “We do hope that no other judge faces proceedings for his removal from service on allegations of misbehaviour. Should, at all, there be an unfortunate recurrence of a judge prima facie indulging in misbehaviour and the representatives of the people of the nation demand an investigation… It would be just and proper if the Secretariat exercises restraint and leaves it to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, as the case may be, to decide the question of admission of a motion instead of concluding as to what should be the future course of action.”
The court clarified that these observations were "academic" in nature and that Justice Varma, whose separate plea challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's constitution of an inquiry committee was rejected in the same verdict, could not derive any benefit or leverage from them.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
