SC disapproves RS secretary general preparing draft order on motion against Justice Varma

New Delhi, Jan 16 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its disapproval over the Rajya Sabha secretary general preparing “draft decision on behalf of the chair” on the motion for the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed a plea filed by Justice Varma challenging the Lok Sabha speaker's decision to admit a motion seeking his removal and challenging the legality of the parliamentary panel probing corruption charges against him.

Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt wads of currency notes were found at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14, 2025.

The bench said the secretary general of the Rajya Sabha went beyond a purely administrative role as is apparent from the language employed in the document itself, and, "without venturing further into the matter, we consider it appropriate to note that the manner in which the notice of motion was processed at the Secretariat level does not fully align with the role contemplated under law".

The top court, which perused the seven-page certified copy of the decision taken by the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha declining to admit the motion on the removal of Justice Varma, said the draft was placed before the deputy chairman, who expressly concurred with the decision of the secretary general.

“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 based on allegations of misbehaviour, 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 top court said.

The bench, which found several discrepancies in the draft order prepared by the secretary general, said that neither the Judges (Inquiry) Act nor the rules framed thereunder prescribe a mandatory form for a notice of motion.

“In the absence of defined parameters, it is not readily apparent on what basis the secretary general concluded that the notice of motion was not ‘in order’. Where no prescribed format exists, a notice containing allegations of impropriety against a judge could not reasonably be treated as ineffective solely on account of perceived deficiencies in drafting or form.

"The role of the secretary general was confined to placing the notice before the competent authority, namely, the office of the chairman, without expressing any conclusion as to its admissibility," it said.

The top court, however, said its observations are confined solely to the procedural aspects noted above and are occasioned by the particular course of action adopted at the Secretariat level.

"Since the decision of the deputy chairman declining to admit the motion is not under challenge, and has been taken independently in accordance with his constitutional role, these observations do not, in any manner, impinge upon or affect the validity of that decision," it said.

During the Monsoon Session of Parliament on July 21 last year, MPs gave two notices of motion in their respective Houses on the same day.

One notice signed by more than 100 MPs of the Lok Sabha, invoking the provisions of the Inquiry Act, was given for presenting an address to the president praying for Justice Varma’s removal.

The said notice was received by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha at 12:30 pm, but was not admitted on the same day.

After a brief interval, between 4:07 pm and 4:19 pm, a notice for the same purpose, signed by more than 50 members, was given in the Rajya Sabha.

The then-chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar, addressed the House regarding the said notice and in his speech, among other matters, he noted that a similar notice may have been given in the Lok Sabha.

Referring to the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act (which requires the constitution of a committee by the presiding officers of both Houses when notices of motion for the removal of a judge are given in both Houses on the same day), Dhankhar directed that “the secretary general will take necessary steps in this direction”.

Dhankar resigned from his office as the vice-president of India later that same day (July 21, 2025).

Later, the notice given in the Rajya Sabha was sent to the Members' Salaries and Allowances Branch of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat for verification of the signatures of the notice givers.

Out of the 62 notice givers, the signatures of three did not match their specimen signatures.

On August 11, 2025, the notice given in the Rajya Sabha was scrutinised by its secretary general, who observed various deficiencies therein and held it to be not "in order".

The draft decision of the secretary general was then placed before the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha, discharging the functions of the chairman in his absence, who concurred with the conclusion and accordingly recorded that the notice was "not admitted".

On August 12, 2025, having received the communication that the notice had not been admitted by the deputy chairman, the speaker of the Lok Sabha proceeded to admit the notice given in the Lok Sabha on July 21, and constituted a three-member committee to inquire the charges against Justice Varma. PTI MNL MNL ARI ARI