New Delhi, Dec 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a plea challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to inquire into allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with impeachment proceedings initiated following the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Justice Varma, who has filed the petition anonymously as “X”, before a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih.
Assailing the procedure adopted for constituting the Committee, Justice Varma has contended that although impeachment notices were moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, proceeded to constitute the Committee unilaterally, without awaiting the decision of the Rajya Sabha Chairman on admission of the motion and without holding the mandatory joint consultation envisaged under law.
Referring to the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, Rohatgi submitted that where notices of a motion are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no Committee can be constituted unless the motion is admitted in both Houses.
In such a situation, he argued, the Committee must be constituted jointly by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
Quoting the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act, Rohatgi emphasized that the statutory language is peremptory and clearly distinguishes between the “giving” of a motion and its “admission”.
He submitted that while admission may occur on different dates, the decisive factor in the present case is that the motions were given in both Houses on the same day, thereby necessitating a jointly constituted Committee.
Rohatgi clarified that where a motion is admitted in only one House, the Committee may be constituted by that House alone, but that situation does not arise in the present case.
He argued that since both Houses are of equal constitutional stature, a joint Committee is mandatory when motions are moved simultaneously.
During the hearing, Justice Datta queried how admission on the same day could arise if two motions are presented to the two Houses on the same date. Rohatgi responded that his argument was not premised on admission on the same day, but on the fact that the motions were “given” on the same day, which, under the statute, triggers the requirement of a joint Committee.
It may be recalled that in July, impeachment notices sponsored by 145 members of the Lok Sabha and 63 members of the Rajya Sabha were submitted to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, respectively.
In August, the Lok Sabha Speaker announced the constitution of the inquiry Committee comprising Justice Arvind Kumar of the Supreme Court, Justice M.M. Shrivastava, Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, and senior advocate Vasudeva Acharya of the Karnataka High Court.
The matter arises from the accidental discovery of a large cache of currency notes at an outhouse of the official residence of Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, during a fire-fighting operation on March 14.
Following the controversy, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituted an in-house inquiry committee comprising Justice Sheel Nagu (then Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court), Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (then Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court).
Pending the inquiry, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court and divested of judicial work. The committee submitted its report in May, prima facie finding his culpability.
The report was forwarded by the then CJI to the President and the Prime Minister after Justice Varma declined to resign despite being advised to do so.
The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed Justice Varma’s challenge to the in-house inquiry proceedings as well as to the recommendation made by the Chief Justice of India for his removal.
SC issues notice on plea challenging constitution of panel against Justice Yashwant Varma
