The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday engaged in a detailed hearing concerning a petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, who is facing a removal motion in the Lok Sabha. The central issue revolved around the constitution of an inquiry panel by the Lok Sabha Speaker to probe allegations of cash being found at his residence. Justice Varma contended that the process was flawed as the panel should have been formed jointly with the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
Core Arguments and Legal Tussle
Representing Justice Varma, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued for over an hour, presenting three key points. First, he stated that the then Rajya Sabha Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, had found the removal motion moved by over 50 MPs in the Upper House to be in order. Second, he argued that the Rajya Sabha deputy chairperson lacked the authority to reject the motion on August 11. Third, and most crucially, he emphasized that under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, if a removal motion is presented in both Houses on the same day, the inquiry committee must be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman.
Rohatgi, assisted by senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and Sidharth Agarwal, asserted that the Lok Sabha Speaker acted unilaterally in setting up the panel, thereby violating the statutory procedure.
Court's Initial View and Government's Counter
The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma expressed its preliminary disagreement with the first two arguments raised by Justice Varma's counsel. The court, however, decided to delve deeper into the third issue. It scheduled the next hearing for Thursday to specifically hear Rohatgi on how the Speaker's unilateral constitution of the inquiry committee vitiated the entire process.
Responding to the charges, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, provided a counter-narrative. He successfully convinced the court that when the post of Rajya Sabha Chairman was vacant—following Dhankhar's resignation on July 21 after receiving the removal motion—the deputy chairperson is constitutionally empowered to discharge all duties. Mehta clarified that the Rajya Sabha Chairman had neither scrutinized the motion nor taken a decision to admit it, contrary to what was projected by Justice Varma.
"The secretary general of RS undertook scrutiny of the motion presented by 62 MPs and notice of the motion was presented before the RS deputy chairperson along with the report of the secretary general showing that the motion was defective on many counts," Mehta submitted. He added that the core purpose of initiating removal proceedings under Section 3 of the Act was already satisfied by the Lok Sabha Speaker's admission of a similar motion.
Allegations of Bias and Ongoing Inquiry
Another plea from Justice Varma alleged bias, claiming that the Lok Sabha Speaker's order referenced a CJI-constituted in-house committee report which had found him liable. The Lok Sabha secretariat, in its affidavit, countered this by stating the Speaker merely mentioned the in-house inquiry report and did not rely on it for forming the panel.
Meanwhile, the inquiry panel constituted by the Speaker and headed by Justice Aravind Kumar is proceeding. It has already provided Justice Varma with a memo of charges and supporting evidence. This evidence primarily includes videos recorded by Delhi Police and Delhi Fire Service personnel on the night of March 14-15, showing cash burning while they doused a fire in a room at the judge's Lutyens Zone bungalow. Justice Varma has been permitted to submit his response to the charges by the end of January.
The Supreme Court's hearing on Thursday is now poised to critically examine the procedural legality of the inquiry committee's formation, a decision that will have significant implications for the ongoing removal proceedings against the judge.
