63 Opposition MPS Serve a notification in Rajya Sabha for the removal of Justice Varma

Sixty-three opposition parliament members On Monday (July 21, 2025) gave a notification in the Rajya Sabha to relocate a motion for the removal of judge of the Supreme Court of Yashwant Varma, whose home burned wads of currency nuts were found after a fire incident in March.

Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain said the notification was submitted to chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar.

A similar notification for moving a motion to remove Justice Varma has been submitted by the rule of BJP and opposition members in the Lok Sabha.

Read also | More than 100 MPs have signed the motion against the judiciary Yaswant Varma, says Kiren Rijiju

Mr Hussain said: “63 Opposition MPs, including those of AAP and India Bloc parties, the Rajya Sabha chairman gave a notification for removal from Justice Varma.”

Although the Trinamool congress members were not present on the day, they are on board the issue and they will submit their signatures later, he said.

A motion for removing a judge must be signed by no fewer than 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha.

The motion can be accepted or rejected by the speaker/chairman of the house.

If the motion is admitted, the chairman or the chairman of the house forms a three -part committee in accordance with the Judges Inquiry Act.

Read also | The in-house investigation of the Supreme Court uses the authority of parliament, eroding judicial independence: Justice Varma

The committee consisting of a senior judge of the Supreme Court, a sitting supreme judge of a Supreme Court and a prominent lawyer will then investigate the charges that are evaluated against Justice Varma and come up with a report in three months.

The investigation report will be submitted in parliament, followed by a discussion in both houses, after which there will be voting on the motion for the removal of Justice Varma.

Although Justice Varma has denied a misconduct, an internal investigation panel appointed by the Higher Court has concluded that the judge and his relatives had secret or active control over the storage space, where the money was found, which proved his misconduct seriously enough to seek his removal.