The Supreme Court has reserved its order on the petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash scandal. Justice Varma has challenged the formation of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha and argued that it was unconstitutional.
However, the court did not accept his request to stay proceedings before the inquiry committee.
Judge Questions Lok Sabha’s Authority To Form Committee
Justice Varma has contended that the proposal for an inquiry was moved in both Houses of Parliament. He argued that under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a joint committee of both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha should have been constituted, instead of a committee formed solely by the Lok Sabha.
Background: Notices In Both Houses And Committee Formation
During the hearing on Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that Members of Parliament submitted notices in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day, July 21, in relation to Justice Varma’s case.
The Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected the notice on August 11. Subsequently, on August 12, the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted a three-member inquiry committee under the chairmanship of Supreme Court Justice Arvind Kumar.
Bench Questions Objection To Lok Sabha Committee
While hearing the matter, Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma questioned what was wrong with the Lok Sabha Speaker forming the committee after the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman had rejected the proposal.
Appearing for Justice Varma, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra argued that under Article 91 of the Constitution, the powers of the Deputy Chairman are limited in the absence of the Chairman. They submitted that while the Deputy Chairman may preside over the House, he cannot exercise all powers that fall within the Chairman’s authority.
Court Seeks Explanation On Alleged Prejudice
During the hearing on Thursday, January 8, the court asked Justice Varma’s counsel, “How has the constitution of a committee by one House caused prejudice to you? Even if the Lok Sabha has constituted the committee, the proposal will eventually go to both Houses. A judge can be removed only with the approval of both Houses.”
Request To Defer Appearance Before Inquiry Panel Rejected
At the conclusion of the hearing, Justice Varma requested the Supreme Court to defer the dates for his appearance before the Lok Sabha-constituted inquiry committee.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, followed by senior advocate Siddharth Agrawal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that he was required to submit a written reply to the committee by January 12 and to appear personally on January 24. They requested that these dates be deferred as the Supreme Court’s decision was still pending.
The judges declined the request, observing that the dates had been fixed well in advance. The court directed that Justice Varma submit his written response to the committee by January 12 as scheduled.
