Supreme Court reserves verdict on plea of Justice Yashwant Varma assailing validity of inquiry panel by Lok Sabha

Justice Yashwant Varma (File photo)

• Supreme Court reserves verdict on Justice Varma's plea against parliamentary probe
• Justice Varma disputes legality of panel investigating his corruption charges
• Varma seeks quashing of Speaker's action, calls process unconstitutional

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a plea of Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma challenging the legality of the parliamentary panel probing corruption charges against him.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma reserved its decision after hearing senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Varma and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both houses of Parliament.

During the hearing, Rohtagi and Luthra questioned the procedure adopted in setting up the parliamentary panel and said under the Judges (inquiry) Act of 1968, only the Speaker of Lok Sabha and chairman of Rajya Sabha are entitled to admit the motion for removal of a judge from office.

Mehta defended the constitution of the parliamentary panel, and said if the motion has been admitted in both the houses then the inquiry committee shall be jointly constituted by the speaker and the chairman.

On Wednesday, the top court 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 Varma after a similar motion was rejected in the Rajya Sabha.

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 on March 14.

The top court had on December 16 agreed to hear Justice Varma's plea challenging the constitution of the inquiry committee and issued notices to the office of Lok Sabha Speaker and the secretaries general of both Houses of Parliament.

Earlier, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had initiated an in-house inquiry and constituted a three-member committee comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman.

The committee submitted its report on May 4, finding Justice Varma guilty of misconduct.

After Justice Varma declined to resign, the CJI forwarded the report and the judge's response to the President and the prime minister, setting the stage for impeachment proceedings.

Subsequently, Birla admitted a multi-party motion for Justice Varma’s removal on August 12 and constituted a three-member inquiry committee comprising Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B V Acharya.

Justice Varma has sought quashing of the Speaker's action, the admission of the motion, and all consequential notices issued by the inquiry committee, contending that the entire process is unconstitutional and contrary to the Judges (Inquiry) Act.