The secretary general of the Rajya Sabha, PC Mody, criticised the Opposition MPs’ notice seeking removal of Allahabad high court judge, justice Yashwant Varma, as displaying a “casual and cavalier approach” to an “extremely serious matter”, flagging multiple legal, procedural and factual infirmities that rendered the motion “not in order” and “non est” (does not exist), parliamentary communications submitted to the Supreme Court and accessed by HT show.
The observations were made in a detailed opinion dated August 11, 2025, submitted by Mody to Rajya Sabha deputy chairperson Harivansh, and followed by a formal communication the same day to Lok Sabha secretary general Utpal Kumar Singh, informing him that the motion moved in the Upper House had not been admitted.
The correspondence assumes significance because the Lok Sabha secretariat has defended the speaker’s decision to proceed with the impeachment process on August 12, 2025, on the ground that no valid motion existed in the Rajya Sabha at the time.
The issue is currently under scrutiny before the apex court, which on Thursday reserved its judgment on justice Varma’s petition challenging the Lok Sabha speaker’s decision to admit the motion and constitute an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
In his opinion, which is now part of the top court’s records, Mody acknowledged that while the notice, signed by 63 Rajya Sabha MPs, met the numerical threshold under Section 3(1)(b) of the 1968 Act, it suffered from “multiple discrepancies” that went to the root of its admissibility.
{{/usCountry}}In his opinion, which is now part of the top court’s records, Mody acknowledged that while the notice, signed by 63 Rajya Sabha MPs, met the numerical threshold under Section 3(1)(b) of the 1968 Act, it suffered from “multiple discrepancies” that went to the root of its admissibility.
{{/usCountry}}Among the most serious flaws, according to him, was the incorrect invocation of law. The notice sought admission of the motion “in the House”, even though Section 3(1)(b) vests the discretion solely in the speaker or chairman, not Parliament as a collective body. Mody noted that invoking the wrong statutory provision reflected a “casual and cavalier approach” incompatible with the gravity of initiating removal proceedings against a constitutional court judge.
The secretary general also pointed out that the notice relied on documents and material facts, including the in-house committee report on the discovery of cash at justice Varma’s official residence, but failed to annex any authenticated copies for the chairman’s consideration.
The opinion also cited some apparently factual inaccuracies in the notice. The motion allegedly claimed that a spot inspection of justice Varma’s residence took place on March 3, 2025 - a date preceding the fire incident itself, which occurred on the night of March 14, 2025. In the absence of supporting material, Mody said, the veracity of these assertions could not be ascertained. “These deficiencies are not minor or technical,” noted the opinion, stressing that procedural safeguards in impeachment proceedings are sacrosanct.
Mody’s opinion also enunciated a key constitutional question now central to the Supreme Court proceedings -- whether a motion becomes the “property of the House” upon mere presentation.
Drawing a distinction between sections 3 and 4 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, the opinion stated that Parliament’s role arises only after an inquiry committee submits a report, not at the threshold stage of admission. The admission of a motion, the secretary general underlined, is an administrative act of the presiding officer to ensure procedural compliance and statutory support. To hold otherwise, Mody warned, would render the speaker’s or chairman’s power of admission “procedurally redundant and legally meaningless”.
After considering the opinion, deputy chairperson Harivansh agreed with Mody’s conclusions, recording that the notice was “not in order” and therefore “not admitted”. Acting on this decision, Mody formally communicated to Lok Sabha secretary general Utpal Kumar Singh on August 11, 2025, that the Rajya Sabha motion stood rejected.
The letter reiterated the same deficiencies, including improper drafting, lack of supporting material, incorrect legal provisions and factual inconsistencies, and added that the chairman had administratively decided the notice was “non est”.
These communications are now central to the Lok Sabha speaker’s defence before the Supreme Court. The Lok Sabha secretariat has argued that since the Rajya Sabha motion was never admitted, the speaker was competent to admit the Lok Sabha motion on August 12 and constitute a three-member inquiry committee headed by a Supreme Court judge.
Justice Varma, however, has contended that because motions were moved in both Houses on July 21, 2025, the proviso to Section 3(2) of the 1968 Act mandated the formation of a joint committee by the speaker and the chairman -- a step that was bypassed.
During hearings on Wednesday and Thursday, a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma examined this clash of interpretations, observing that the court must balance the rights of the judge being proceeded against with the will of MPs representing the people.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for Parliament, told the court that no Rajya Sabha member had challenged the rejection of the motion, and even justice Varma had not assailed it, as it operated in his favour. He argued that interfering at this stage would derail a constitutionally sanctioned accountability mechanism.
The impeachment proceedings stem from the discovery of wads of unaccounted cash at justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi following a fire in March 2025, when he was a judge of the Delhi high court. An in-house inquiry panel later found his explanation unsatisfactory, prompting then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to recommend action to the President and Prime Minister.
The inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker comprises Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, and senior advocate BV Acharya. Justice Varma has been asked to submit his response by January 12 and appear before the panel on January 24.