Supreme Court Deliberates on Controversial Inquiry into Judge Yashwant Varma

Supreme Court's Verdict on Judge Varma's Plea Pending

New Delhi: On Thursday, the Supreme Court reserved its ruling regarding a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, who is contesting the legitimacy of a parliamentary committee investigating corruption allegations against him.

A bench led by Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma made this decision after listening to arguments from senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, who represented Varma, as well as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who spoke on behalf of both houses of Parliament.

During the proceedings, Rohatgi and Luthra raised concerns about the method used to establish the parliamentary committee, asserting that according to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, only the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman have the authority to initiate a motion for a judge's removal.

In response, Mehta defended the formation of the parliamentary committee, stating that once the motion is accepted in both houses, the inquiry committee should be jointly formed by the Speaker and the Chairman.

The Supreme Court had previously noted that there is no restriction under the Judges Inquiry Act preventing Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla from forming an inquiry committee to investigate the corruption claims against Varma, even after a similar motion was turned down in the Rajya Sabha.

Justice Varma was reassigned from the Delhi High Court back to the Allahabad High Court following the discovery of burnt bundles of cash at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14.

On December 16, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Justice Varma's challenge against the inquiry committee's formation and issued notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker's office and the secretaries general of both Houses.

Previously, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had initiated an internal inquiry, forming a three-member committee that included Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman.

This committee submitted its findings on May 4, concluding that Justice Varma had committed misconduct.

After Justice Varma refused to resign, the Chief Justice forwarded the committee's report and Varma's response to the President and Prime Minister, paving the way for impeachment proceedings.

Following this, Speaker Birla accepted a multi-party motion for Justice Varma's removal on August 12 and established a three-member inquiry committee that included Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B V Acharya.

Justice Varma is seeking to annul the Speaker's actions, the acceptance of the motion, and all related notices issued by the inquiry committee, arguing that the entire process is unconstitutional and violates the Judges (Inquiry) Act.