New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to admit a motion seeking his removal and to constitute an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The two judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, in its detailed judgement, ruled that no Fundamental Rights were violated, held that Article 32 relief was not maintainable, and dismissed the writ petition.
The plea arose from allegations of unaccounted cash being found at his official residence in Delhi last year.
The Supreme Court said the Deputy Chairman’s refusal, even if examined, would not affect the validity of the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute the inquiry committee.
The Court ruled that the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was legally competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion seeking removal of the judge.
The bench held that the Deputy Chairman’s refusal does not affect the validity of the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute an inquiry committee under Section 3(2).
With this, the Court cleared the way for the parliamentary panel to proceed with the probe into the misconduct allegations.
Rejecting the writ petition, the bench noted that Justice Varma had not challenged the decision of the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman, who had earlier rejected a similar impeachment motion.
The Court observed that once the Lok Sabha Speaker had admitted the motion and constituted the committee in accordance with law, judicial interference was unwarranted at this stage.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that since impeachment motions were moved in both Houses on the same day, the inquiry committee should have been jointly constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
He also questioned the authority of the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, contending that his powers were limited in the absence of the Chairman.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected these submissions, holding that the Speaker acted within his constitutional and statutory powers.
The bench also referred to its earlier reasoning that constitutional authorities can exercise full powers when discharging assigned functions.
Justice Varma, who has been transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court and divested of judicial work, has denied the allegations, stating before the parliamentary committee that he was not in Delhi on the day of the incident and that any lapse by security staff could not be attributed to him.
