Justice Yashwant Varma impeachment motion: Let Lok Sabha Speaker, Rajya Sabha Chairman decide, Supreme Court tells Secretary General of Upper House

The Supreme Court on Friday (January 16, 2026) raised concerns about the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha, who went far beyond the confines of a purely administrative role to prepare a “draft decision” concluding that the notice of motion given by Rajya Sabha MPs for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma was inadmissible. The top court said it “would be just and proper if the Secretariat exercises restraint” in such matters.

The eventual rejection of the MPs’ notice of motion by the Deputy Rajya Sabha Chairman was based on the conclusions arrived at by the Secretary General that not all was “in order”.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma said the Secretary General had only an administrative role and did not extend to assuming quasi-adjudicatory functions.

In the judgment, the court expressed hope that next time a judge faced removal, the Secretariat would leave it to the Lok Sabha Speaker or the Rajya Sabha Chairman, as the case may be, to decide on the admission of the motion.

“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… 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,” Justice Datta wrote in the judgment.

In the present case, the draft decision of the Secretary General had concluded that the MPs did not use “proper terms” in their notice of removal motion, did not furnish “authenticated documents to support material facts”, and presented incorrect facts and quoted a wrong provision of law.

The court said none of these was necessary to move a removal notice, and the Secretary General had “traversed beyond the scope of his designated role”.

The court, however, added that this discussion was only for academic purposes, and Justice Varma should not rely on it to claim any benefit or leverage.