New Delhi, Jan. 9 -- 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. 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....