New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday orally observed that there was no bar under the Judges Inquiry Act on Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla setting up an inquiry committee to probe corruption charges against Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma after a similar motion was rejected in the Rajya Sabha.
Expressing prima facie opinion, a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma was also not in agreement with the submissions of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Justice Varma, that the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha was not competent to reject the motion following the resignation of chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar.
The top court, however, observed that there appears to be “some infirmity” in the manner in which the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted the panel, and said it would examine whether the defect is grave enough to warrant termination of the proceedings.
Rohatgi, at the outset, opposed the setting up of the inquiry committee by the Speaker, saying that if the impeachment motions are moved simultaneously in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day, the committee has to be formed jointly by both the houses.
“Prima facie let us be clear that we are not with Rohatgi on (point) one and two (setting up of the inquiry panel and the action of Deputy Chairperson of Rajya Sabha to reject the motion)… We have to only see if we should intervene under Article 32 to see if the person (Justice Varma) should have got the benefit of the joint committee (of both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha)…,” Justice Datta said.
The bench was hearing a petition of Justice Varma challenging the legality of the parliamentary panel under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for inquiry against him over the discovery of unaccounted half-burnt cash currencies at his residence here.
Rohatgi referred to a proviso of Section 3(2) of Act which reads: “Provided that where notices of a motion referred to in sub-section (1) are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman.”
The bench said that the Act does not expressly state that if one House rejects a motion, the other House is barred from proceeding.
“Where is the bar under the proviso for the Lok Sabha to appoint a committee if the Rajya Sabha rejects the motion?” Justice Datta asked.
“If one house has rejected a motion, then where is the bar on the Lok Sabha in constituting the Committee,” he asked again.
Justice Datta said that the proviso is silent on whether the rejection of the motion in the Rajya Sabha will bar the Lok Sabha from proceeding with it. “We have to read the silence in the provision purposively,” he said.
The bench, however, said that had the Rajya Sabha also admitted the motion, then Justice Varma would have got the benefit of a joint committee.
“But whether it is so prejudicial to your interest that we have to interfere under Article 32,” the bench asked and listed the plea for further hearing Thursday.
Rohatgi also assailed the decision of the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha to reject the motion, which was earlier admitted by the chairperson of the Upper House.
The question is whether the Speaker of the Lok Sabha could unilaterally constitute an inquiry committee when removal motions were initiated in both Houses of Parliament on the same day, but admitted only in one House, Rohatgi said.
He said for the removal of a judge, Parliament must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed under the Act, which requires a motion signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
Once such a motion is admitted, a committee is to be constituted to conduct an inquiry, akin to a departmental proceeding, followed by debate in the House.
Drawing the attention of the bench, Rohatgi emphasised that impeachment motions against Justice Varma were moved in both Houses of Parliament on the same day, that is July 21, 2025.
Referring to provisions, he said that when notices of motion are given in both Houses on the same day, no committee shall be constituted unless the motion is admitted in both Houses.
In such a situation, the Act contemplates the formation of a joint committee by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
“In the present case, one motion was rejected. Therefore, the committee constituted thereafter is non est in law,” Rohatgi said.
He argued that the Deputy Chairman can only preside over the proceedings in the House in the absence of the Chairman.
Justice Datta pointed out that since the Chairman had resigned, the Deputy Chairman will automatically step in.
Rohatgi replied that the Deputy will step in only to chair the proceedings in the house.
Disagreeing, Justice Datta said that the Deputy can perform “the duties of the office of the Chairman”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said it was a mere statement by the Rajya Sabha Chairperson that he had received the motion, and there was no express order of admission passed.
Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt wads of currency notes were found at his official residence in New Delhi March 14.
PTI
