New Delhi:
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, refusing to interfere with the impeachment process initiated against him and holding that courts cannot be used to derail a constitutionally mandated parliamentary procedure.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has cleared the path for Parliament to continue with the impeachment mechanism under Article 124(4) of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, reinforcing the principle that judicial review at a premature stage would upset the constitutional balance between the judiciary and the legislature.
Challenge to Inquiry Committee
Justice Varma had approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitution of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker, arguing that the Speaker acted unilaterally and without adhering to procedural safeguards. He sought a stay on the inquiry as well as the impeachment process arising out of allegations connected to the recovery of large amounts of cash from his official residence.
The petition contended that the manner in which the inquiry panel was formed violated constitutional norms and undermined judicial independence.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice S.C. Sharma rejected these arguments, observing that the impeachment of a constitutional court judge is a matter squarely within Parliament’s domain, and judicial interference at this stage would amount to obstructing a constitutional process.
The Court categorically held that:
- The Speaker’s role in constituting an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act is part of a statutory and constitutional scheme
- Courts cannot grant a stay merely because the judge concerned disputes the initiation of proceedings
- Any judicial intervention before Parliament completes its inquiry would be premature and constitutionally improper
In a strong observation, the Bench noted that “law cannot be used to scuttle a parliamentary process”, underlining that constitutional accountability mechanisms must be allowed to function independently.
No Opinion on Merits of Allegations
Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations against Justice Varma. The Court confined itself strictly to the question of maintainability and timing of judicial review, making it clear that the inquiry committee is the appropriate forum to examine evidence and determine culpability.
This distinction reinforces a long-standing judicial principle: procedural challenges cannot be used to pre-empt constitutionally prescribed accountability mechanisms.
What Happens Next
With the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant relief:
- The inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker will proceed with its investigation
- The committee will submit its findings to Parliament
- Based on the report, Parliament may decide whether to move forward with a formal impeachment motion, which requires a special majority under the Constitution
The ruling ensures that the multi-stage safeguard built into the impeachment process—inquiry, debate, and voting—remains intact.
Constitutional Significance
Legal experts note that the judgment reinforces three critical constitutional principles:
- Separation of powers — courts cannot intrude into Parliament’s exclusive functions
- Judicial accountability — judges are not immune from constitutional scrutiny
- Institutional balance — neither organ of the State can short-circuit the process of another
At a time when public confidence in institutions is closely scrutinised, the ruling underscores that constitutional offices are accompanied by constitutional responsibility.
Bottom Line
By rejecting Justice Varma’s plea, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message:
constitutional accountability cannot be stalled by litigation, and impeachment proceedings—however sensitive—must be allowed to follow the path laid down by the Constitution.
The focus now shifts from the courtroom to Parliament, where the next phase of this rare and consequential process will unfold.