New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it appears there are some shortcomings in the inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker to investigate the allegations against Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Verma. The court said it would consider whether the shortcomings are serious enough to warrant quashing the proceedings.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter. Concluding the hearing on Wednesday, Justice Datta said, “Let us make it clear, prima facie we are not with Mr. Rohatgi on points one and two…that proviso, the meaning of the proviso, and in the absence of the Chairman, whether the Deputy Chairman…the very small point is that if the Rajya Sabha had also adopted the resolution, you would have had the benefit of a joint committee.”
Justice Datta added, “It is so prejudicial to your interest that we should intervene under Article 32, we are giving you time to think about this point and come back to us tomorrow.”
Earlier, the Supreme Court had issued notice on Justice Verma’s plea challenging the formation of the inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker to investigate corruption allegations against him.
During the hearing on Wednesday, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Verma, argued that a committee can only be constituted jointly by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman if impeachment motions are introduced simultaneously in both Houses.
Citing an affidavit filed by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, Mukul Rohatgi said that the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha was rejected by the Deputy Chairman on August 11, and the committee was constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker on August 12. However, Rohatgi emphasized that the motions were introduced in both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha on the same day, July 11.
It was argued before the Supreme Court, citing the proviso to Section 3(2), that the Lok Sabha Speaker could not constitute the committee after the resolution was rejected by one House. The bench asked, “If one House has rejected the resolution, what prevents the Lok Sabha from constituting the committee?”
Rohatgi replied that since both resolutions were introduced on the same day, both needed to be accepted, and only then could a committee be formed, that too jointly by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
Adjourning the hearing to Thursday, the bench said that prima facie, they also felt there was something in the Secretary General’s note that shouldn’t have been there, but it hasn’t been challenged, and added, “There is some deficiency… It will be to the extent that the entire committee will have to be…”
The inquiry committee comprises Supreme Court judge Arvind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya of the Karnataka High Court.
Justice Verma’s petition states that the petitioner has challenged the Lok Sabha Speaker’s unilateral act of constituting a committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to inquire into the grounds on which the petitioner’s removal from the post of High Court judge is sought. This action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The petition states, “The aforesaid action and all actions consequent thereto are contrary to the mandatory directions contained in the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, inasmuch as although notices of the resolution under Section 3(1) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 were given in both Houses of Parliament on the same day, the Speaker unilaterally constituted the committee without the resolution being approved by the Chairman and without consultation with the Chairman as mandated by the said Act.”
Justice Verma’s petition states that on July 21, 2025, members of Parliament moved separate impeachment resolutions before both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, seeking the removal of the petitioner from the post of judge in accordance with the Constitution. The petition states, “Both impeachment motions fulfilled the legal requirement of being signed by the requisite number of members. Subsequently, on August 12, 2025, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha announced that he was accepting the impeachment motion presented before him on July 21, and was constituting a three-member committee under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to conduct a legal inquiry against the petitioner.”
The petition further states that the motion was never accepted in the Rajya Sabha, nor did the Speaker and Chairman jointly constitute a committee. The petition alleges, “The Speaker has clearly violated the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act by unilaterally constituting a committee on August 12, after accepting the motion presented in the Lok Sabha on July 21, while a separate motion was presented in the Rajya Sabha on the same day, which was not accepted.”
On March 14, bundles of burnt currency notes were found in the storeroom of the judge’s official residence in Delhi after a fire broke out. The Supreme Court is hearing Justice Verma’s petition challenging the validity of the three-member committee constituted solely by the Lok Sabha under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
