Supreme Court Reviews Lok Sabha's Inquiry into Justice Yashwant Varma's Allegations

Supreme Court's Observations on Inquiry Committee

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court indicated that there appears to be no initial legal barrier preventing the Lok Sabha from establishing an inquiry committee to investigate corruption allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court. This follows the rejection of a similar motion in the Rajya Sabha.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma stated that it would assess whether the inquiry could be detrimental to Varma's interests, as reported by a Media Channel.

The court was addressing a petition from Varma, who is contesting the legitimacy of a three-member judicial committee formed by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla under the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968, aimed at probing the impeachment proceedings linked to an unaccounted cash incident.

Justice Varma sought to annul Birla's decision to create the committee, arguing that while impeachment notices were filed in both Houses, the committee was formed without waiting for the Upper House's approval.

Allegations surfaced regarding unaccounted cash found at Varma's official residence in Delhi during a fire response on March 14, while he was serving as a judge at the Delhi High Court. Varma claimed he was in Bhopal at the time and asserted that the cash did not belong to him or his family.

Following the controversy, he was reassigned to the Allahabad High Court.

A report from the internal inquiry committee, released on May 3, indicated that there was substantial evidence supporting the allegations against Varma, suggesting that his conduct warranted removal proceedings.

For a judge to be impeached in Parliament, a motion must be endorsed by either 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If the motion is accepted by both Houses, a three-member judicial committee investigates the claims. The Parliament then votes on the impeachment, and if two-thirds support it, the president is advised to remove the judge.

On July 25, the Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister stated that the decision to impeach Varma was unanimous, with 152 MPs from both the ruling coalition and opposition signing the motion.

It was agreed that the impeachment process would be a collaborative effort, with the Lok Sabha initiating proceedings before moving to the Rajya Sabha, in accordance with the Judges Inquiry Act.

However, on August 12, the Lok Sabha speaker established a three-member committee, including Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and advocate B Vasudeva Acharya, to investigate the allegations.

In November, the committee requested a written statement from Varma regarding the charges. In his response, Varma sought authenticated copies of the motions submitted in both Houses in July and any subsequent orders.

However, the Lok Sabha's secretary general indicated that the Rajya Sabha had not accepted the impeachment motion, as reported by a Media Channel.

During Wednesday's hearing, advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Varma, argued that procedural irregularities compromised the inquiry initiated by the Lok Sabha speaker.

He pointed out that the law stipulates that if notices are issued on the same day in both Houses, no committee should be formed until the motion is accepted by both.

Nonetheless, an affidavit from the Lok Sabha secretary general revealed that the Rajya Sabha's deputy chairperson had rejected the motion on August 11, Rohatgi noted.

Rohatgi stated, “The motion was introduced on July 21, and the chairman resigned that evening. The deputy chairman rejected the motion on August 11.”

The advocate referred to the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar as vice president and Rajya Sabha chairperson on July 21.

In response, the court inquired whether any law prohibited the Lok Sabha speaker from forming an investigation committee after the Rajya Sabha chairperson rejected an impeachment motion when such motions are presented in both Houses.

The court acknowledged that a joint committee is only required if both Houses accept the impeachment motion, as reported by a Media Channel. However, Justice Datta questioned what would occur if one motion fails while the other succeeds.

“If both Houses accept the motion, then a joint committee is formed,” Justice Datta stated. “But if one House rejects it, what prevents the Lok Sabha from appointing a probe committee? If one motion is not accepted, why should the other House's motion fail?”

Justice Datta emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation of the law.

He expressed that he did not initially concur with Rohatgi's assertion that an impeachment motion in the Lok Sabha must fail if a similar motion is rejected in the Rajya Sabha, as reported by a Media Channel.

During the proceedings, Rohatgi further contended that the Rajya Sabha chairperson had acknowledged the impeachment motion, indicating that proceedings under the Judges Inquiry Act had commenced, as reported by a Media Channel.

He argued that this acknowledgment implied the motion had been accepted in the Rajya Sabha and that the deputy chairperson could not override the chairperson's decision in such matters.

The bench scheduled the matter for further hearing on Thursday, as reported by a Media Channel.

Previously, Varma had also challenged the internal committee report that found him culpable, along with the recommendation made by Sanjiv Khanna, the then Chief Justice of India, to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

In August, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions.