Congress Accuses Centre of Constitutional Breach in Handling of Justice Varma Impeachment Notice, Warns of Legal Fallout
The Congress party on Saturday sharply criticised the Modi government over what it described as “institutional sabotage” and “constitutional transgression” in the handling of the Opposition’s impeachment notice against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court.
Senior Congress leader and eminent lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi raised serious concerns about the government’s conduct in the Rajya Sabha, accusing it of derailing parliamentary procedure and setting a dangerous precedent that could undermine judicial accountability and embolden legal defences by Justice Varma in ongoing or future challenges.
❝When was the notice rejected?❞
Singhvi questioned the government’s claim that the Opposition’s impeachment notice was merely “submitted” but not admitted in the Upper House on Monday. He stressed that this ambiguity, whether intentional or not, risks weakening the legal process being initiated against the judge.
Citing the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, specifically Section 3(2), Singhvi argued that once identical notices are submitted in both Houses of Parliament on the same day, a clear process must be followed.
This includes the constitution of a joint parliamentary committee to examine the charges.
Former Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar, during his remarks on the floor, had acknowledged this provision and directed the Secretary-General to take appropriate steps, following confirmation from Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal that a similar notice had been submitted in the Lok Sabha.
However, Singhvi and other Opposition leaders contend that the Centre’s subsequent claim—that the Rajya Sabha had not admitted the motion—is a deliberate attempt to stall the process, possibly to protect judicial allies or manipulate the outcome.
The events were further complicated by Dhankhar’s sudden resignation later that same evening, which the government officially attributed to health reasons. But Opposition leaders have suggested his discomfort with being used as a constitutional tool could have played a role.
Justice Varma, Cash Seizures, and Selective Action
Justice Yashwant Varma’s name became controversial after the recovery of large sums of partially burnt currency from his premises, which prompted Opposition MPs to initiate a rare impeachment motion—backed reportedly by both Treasury and Opposition benches.
If, as Kiren Rijiju, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, stated, the notice had bipartisan support, Singhvi asked why the government failed to allow proper tabling and deliberation in Rajya Sabha.
Instead, he alleged, the ruling regime seemed keen to sidestep the mandatory bicameral scrutiny process and obstruct full parliamentary debate.
“The motion should have become the collective property of Parliament,” Singhvi argued. “You are undermining the sanctity of an Act of Parliament, which mandates a joint motion involving nearly 800 MPs.”
Singhvi also warned that this procedural inconsistency could unintentionally help Justice Varma mount a stronger legal defence by allowing him to claim that his potential impeachment was procedurally flawed.
“Why create such confusion and unilateralism between the two Houses?” Singhvi asked. “You may be handing Justice Varma a fresh legal weapon to challenge the integrity of the impeachment committee.”
Justice Shekhar Yadav: Another Silence, Another Controversy
Adding further weight to his argument, Singhvi slammed the government’s continued silence on another impeachment notice filed in December 2024 against Justice Shekhar Yadav, also of the Allahabad High Court. This notice accused the judge of hate speech and communal incitement, but no progress has been made on it so far.
“Why has there been no movement on that case, despite the severity of the charges?” Singhvi asked. “Is it because the allegations serve a political narrative that suits the government?”
