Lagatar24 Desk
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, who has challenged the legality of a parliamentary inquiry panel constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to probe corruption allegations against him.
Arguments On Validity Of Inquiry Panel
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma heard detailed submissions from senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Justice Varma, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both Houses of Parliament. Varma’s counsel argued that under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, only the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman are empowered to admit a motion seeking removal of a judge, and questioned the procedure followed in constituting the inquiry committee.
Centre Defends Speaker’s Action
The Solicitor General defended the formation of the parliamentary panel, contending that once motions are admitted in both Houses, a joint inquiry committee can be validly constituted by the Speaker and the Chairman. The Supreme Court also noted earlier that there is no explicit bar under the Judges Inquiry Act preventing the Lok Sabha Speaker from setting up such a committee even after a similar motion was rejected in the Rajya Sabha.
Background Of The Case
Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt bundles of currency notes were allegedly found at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14. An in-house inquiry initiated earlier by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna found Varma guilty of misconduct. After Varma declined to resign, the report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister, paving the way for impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment Process And Legal Challenge
Following this, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted a multi-party motion for Justice Varma’s removal on August 12 and constituted a three-member inquiry committee. Justice Varma has approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the Speaker’s action, admission of the motion, and all subsequent proceedings, arguing that the entire process is unconstitutional and violates the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
