The Supreme Courtroom right now(December 16) issued discover in a plea difficult the legality of the Parliamentary Committee beneath the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for inquiry towards Justice Yashwant Varma within the impeachment proceedings over the invention of unaccounted money currencies at his official residence.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Justice Yashwant Varma (who filed the petition anonymously as X), appeared earlier than a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih. Difficult the method adopted, Varma has argued that regardless of impeachment notices being moved in each the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla proceeded to represent the committee on his personal, with out awaiting the Rajya Sabha Chairman’s choice on admission of the movement or holding the obligatory joint session prescribed by legislation.
Rohatgi, studying the structure of the Committee and the provisions of the 1968 Act, submitted: “The place the notices of the movement are ‘given’ to the Homes on the identical date, that’s the case right here, no Committee can be constituted, that is peremptory mylords, except the movement is being admitted in each Homes. And the place such movement is admitted in each Homes, the Committee shall be constituted collectively by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman”
He clarified that if the movement is ‘admitted’ solely in a single Home, the Committee can be constituted in a single Home, however that’s not the case right here as a result of not solely the movement was given it was additionally admitted on the identical date.
He was referring to proviso to Part 3(2) which reads: “Offered that the place notices of a movement referred to in sub-section (1) are given on the identical day in each Homes of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted except the movement has been admitted in each Homes and the place such movement has been admitted in each Homes, the Committee shall be constituted collectively by the Speaker and the Chairman:”
It might be recalled that in July, notices of impeachment, sponsored by 145 members of Lok Sabha, and 63 members of Rajya Sabha, had been submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla and the then Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar, respectively.
Subsequently, in August, the Lok Sabha speaker had introduced the Committee, which consisted of Justice Arvind Kumar of the Supreme Courtroom, Justice M M Shrivastava, Chief Justice of Madras Excessive Courtroom and Vasudeva Acharya, Senior Advocate of the Karnataka Excessive Courtroom.
Rohatgi added: “Within the eventuality, which is uncommon, whether it is given on the identical day and except the movement is formally admitted, relying upon the Home, then the Committee can be collectively constituted after session between the Speaker and Chairman. Then, will probably be referred to as as Joint Committee of each Homes. The phrases are peremptory that whether it is admitted on the identical day.“
Justice Dutta requested: “Mr Rohatgi, inform us. If two motions are introduced to the 2 Homes on the identical day, the place is the query of admission on the identical day?”
Rohatgi submitted that the movement will be ‘given’ on a special date, however he’s arguing on the purpose of ‘admission’. He argued that there’s a distinction between ‘admission’ and ‘given’. He stated: “The phrases are ‘given’. Please learn it as filed…If two Homes are moved on the identical day, each Homes of equal stature, one could require 100 signatures and one could require 50, however of equal stature and are elements of democracy. If they’re moved on similar day, and since each are equal, what’s required to have is a joint Committee [if it is admitted on the same date].”
Background
The problem pertains to the unintentional discovery of an enormous pile of foreign money notes at an outhouse of the official residence of Justice Varma, then a decide of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom, throughout a fire-fighting operation on March 14.
After the invention led to an enormous public controversy, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted an in-house inquiry committee of three judges- Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana Excessive Courtroom), Justice GS Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Decide, Karnataka Excessive Courtroom). Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom, and judicial work was withdrawn from him pending the inquiry.
The committee submitted its report, prima facie discovering Justice Varma’s culpability, to then CJI Khanna in Could, which the CJI forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister for additional motion, after Justice Varma refused to heed the CJI’s recommendation to resign.
It needs to be famous that the Supreme Courtroom dismissed Justice Varma’s petition difficult the in-house inquiry in addition to the CJI’s suggestion to take away him.
Case Particulars: X Vs O/O SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE|W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025 Diary No. 71319 / 2025
Leave a Reply