4 months ago
1
The Supreme Court connected Wednesday (January 7, 2026) orally observed that determination was nary barroom nether the Judges Inquiry Act connected Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla setting up an enquiry committee to probe corruption charges against Allahabad High Court justice Yashwant Varma aft a akin question was rejected successful the Rajya Sabha.
Expressing prima facie opinion, a seat comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma was besides not successful statement with the submissions of elder advocator Mukul Rohatgi, representing Justice Varma, that the lawman chairperson of the Rajya Sabha was not competent to cull the question pursuing the resignation of chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar.
The apical court, however, observed that determination appears to beryllium “some infirmity” successful the mode successful which the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted the panel, and said it would analyse whether the defect is sedate capable to warrant termination of the proceedings.
Mr. Rohatgi, astatine the outset, opposed the mounting up of the enquiry committee by the Speaker, saying that if the impeachment motions are moved simultaneously successful the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha connected the aforesaid day, the committee has to beryllium formed jointly by some the houses.
“Prima facie fto america beryllium wide that we are not with Mr. Rohatgi connected (point) 1 and 2 (setting up of the enquiry sheet and the enactment of Deputy Chairperson of Rajya Sabha to cull the motion)... We person to lone spot if we should intervene nether Article 32 to spot if the idiosyncratic (Justice Varma) should person got the payment of the associated committee (of some Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha)...,” Justice Datta said.
The seat was proceeding a petition of Justice Varma challenging the legality of the parliamentary sheet nether the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for enquiry against him implicit the find of unaccounted half-burnt currency currencies astatine his residence successful New Delhi.
Mr. Rohatgi referred to a proviso of Section 3(2) of Act which reads: “Provided that wherever notices of a question referred to successful sub-section (1) are fixed connected the aforesaid time successful some Houses of Parliament, nary Committee shall beryllium constituted unless the question has been admitted successful some Houses and wherever specified question has been admitted successful some Houses, the Committee shall beryllium constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman.”
The seat said that the Act does not expressly authorities that if 1 House rejects a motion, the different House is barred from proceeding.
“Where is the barroom nether the proviso for the Lok Sabha to name a committee if the Rajya Sabha rejects the motion?” Justice Datta asked.
“If 1 location has rejected a motion, past wherever is the barroom connected the Lok Sabha successful constituting the Committee,” helium asked again.
Justice Datta said that the proviso is soundless connected whether the rejection of the question successful the Rajya Sabha volition barroom the Lok Sabha from proceeding with it. “We person to work the soundlessness successful the proviso purposively,” helium said.
The bench, however, said that had the Rajya Sabha besides admitted the motion, past Justice Varma would person got the payment of a associated committee.
“But whether it is truthful prejudicial to your involvement that we person to interfere nether Article 32,” the seat asked and listed the plea for further proceeding connected Thursday (January 8).
Mr. Rohatgi besides assailed the determination of the lawman chairperson of the Rajya Sabha to cull 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 represent an enquiry committee erstwhile removal motions were initiated successful some Houses of Parliament connected the aforesaid time but admitted lone successful 1 House,” Mr. Rohatgi said.
He said for the removal of a judge, Parliament indispensable strictly adhere to the process prescribed nether the Act, which requires a question signed by astatine slightest 100 members of the Lok Sabha oregon 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
Once specified a question is admitted, a committee is to beryllium constituted to behaviour an inquiry, akin to a departmental proceeding, followed by statement successful the House.
Drawing the attraction of the bench, Mr. Rohatgi emphasised that impeachment motions against Justice Varma were moved successful some Houses of Parliament connected the aforesaid day, that is July 21, 2025.
Referring to provisions, helium said that erstwhile notices of question are fixed successful some Houses connected the aforesaid day, nary committee shall beryllium constituted unless the question is admitted successful some Houses.
In specified a situation, the Act contemplates the enactment of a associated committee by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
“In the contiguous case, 1 question was rejected. Therefore, the committee constituted thereafter is non est successful law,” Mr. Rohatgi said.
He argued that the Deputy Chairman tin lone preside implicit the proceedings successful the House successful the lack of the Chairman.
Justice Datta pointed retired that since the Chairman had resigned, the Deputy Chairman volition automatically measurement in.
Mr. Rohatgi replied that the Deputy volition measurement successful lone to seat the proceedings successful the house.
Disagreeing, Justice Datta said that the Deputy tin execute “the duties of the bureau of the Chairman”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said it was a specified connection by the Rajya Sabha Chairperson that helium had received the motion, and determination was nary explicit bid of admittance passed.
Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court aft burnt wads of currency notes were recovered astatine his authoritative residence successful New Delhi connected March 14.
