New Delhi, Jan (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to inquire into allegations relating to the recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma heard extensive submissions on the scope and interpretation of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, particularly the procedure to be followed when impeachment motions are moved simultaneously in both Houses of Parliament.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that the constitutional and statutory procedure under Article 124(5) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 had not been followed.
He argued that a motion for the removal of a judge must be signed by 100 Members of the Lok Sabha or 50 Members of the Rajya Sabha.
Once such a motion is formally admitted, a committee can be constituted to conduct an inquiry, akin to a departmental proceeding.
In the present case, impeachment motions were moved in both Houses on the same day (21 July), triggering the proviso under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
Rohatgi emphasised that the proviso uses mandatory and negative language, making it clear that no inquiry committee can be constituted unless motions are admitted in both Houses.
Since the Rajya Sabha motion was rejected on August 11, he argued that the subsequent constitution of the committee on August 12 was legally unsustainable.
“This motion is non est in law,” Rohatgi contended, asserting that once one House rejects the motion, the committee cannot be formed at all.
Justice Datta questioned whether the proviso could be interpreted to mean that rejection by one House automatically nullifies proceedings in the other, pointing out that such an interpretation could lead to misuse or sabotage of the impeachment process.
The Bench observed that the main provision and the proviso must be read harmoniously, and queried whether the statute expressly bars the Lok Sabha from proceeding independently if the Rajya Sabha rejects a motion.
Justice Datta illustrated a hypothetical scenario where a motion in one House could be deliberately defeated to frustrate proceedings in the other, questioning whether such an outcome could have been the legislative intent.
Justice Sharma noted that the Rajya Sabha motion in the present case was never formally admitted, raising doubts about whether the statutory threshold had been crossed at all.
Rohatgi further relied on Section 2(a) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, arguing that the definition of “Chairman” is exhaustive and does not permit delegation.
Section 7 of the Act, dealing with rule-making powers, contends that the Speaker and Chairman must act jointly in matters concerning inquiry mechanisms.
He submitted that the Speaker’s decision to constitute a three-member inquiry committee was ultra vires the Act and liable to be quashed.
Justice Varma approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker constituting a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, following allegations of recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence.
The petition raises significant constitutional questions concerning the independence of the judiciary, the procedural safeguards in impeachment proceedings, and the interpretation of Article 124(5) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act when impeachment motions are moved simultaneously in both Houses of Parliament.
The matter is expected to have far-reaching implications on the law governing judicial impeachment and parliamentary oversight.
The hearing will continue.
The controversy traces back to the recovery of a substantial amount of unaccounted cash from the official residence of Justice Varma, which led to the initiation of steps for his possible removal under the constitutional impeachment mechanism.
Following the incident, the matter was placed before the competent constitutional authorities, triggering proceedings under Article 124(5) of the Constitution read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which lays down the procedure for removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
On July 21, impeachment motions seeking Justice Varma’s removal were moved simultaneously in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. While the motion in the Lok Sabha was acted upon, the corresponding motion in the Rajya Sabha was not admitted and was later rejected on August 11.
Despite the rejection of the motion in the Upper House, a three-member inquiry committee was constituted on August 12 under the Judges (Inquiry) Act to examine the allegations arising from the recovery of cash.
Aggrieved by the constitution of the committee, Justice Varma approached the Supreme Court contending that the statutory preconditions for forming an inquiry committee were not fulfilled, as the impeachment motion was not admitted in both Houses of Parliament as mandated by the proviso to Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
Justice Varma has maintained that the constitution of the committee is void ab initio, arguing that the alleged recovery of cash cannot be subjected to a parliamentary inquiry unless the procedure strictly prescribed under the Constitution and the 1968 Act is followed.
The case, therefore, raises important constitutional and institutional questions concerning the balance between judicial independence and parliamentary accountability, and the manner in which impeachment proceedings against members of the higher judiciary must be initiated and conducted.
