Impeachment motion: SC rejects Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against “unilateral” constitution of inquiry committee by Speaker

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, seeking the quashing of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s decision to constitute a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act to inquire into the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his then official residence in New Delhi, in pursuance of impeachment proceedings against him.

Dismissing Justice Varma’s plea and holding that no interference was called for with the Speaker’s decision, a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “The extraordinary remedy under Article 32 is confined to enforcement of Fundamental Rights and does not extend to issuing advisory or corrective directions in relation to internal statutory mechanisms of the Parliament, where no present or inevitable infraction of any Fundamental Right is evinced. Petitioner is, thus, not entitled to any relief.”

Advertisement

For adjudicating Justice Yashwant Varma’s challenge to the Speaker’s decision, the Supreme Court framed a set of five interlinked issues centred on the interpretation and application of Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.

At the core was the question of whether the first proviso to Section 3(2) mandates the constitution of a Joint Committee when impeachment notices are submitted in both Houses on the same day but are subsequently admitted by the Speaker, Lok Sabha, and refused by the Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha.

The Court also examined the competence of the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to decline admission of the motion in the absence of the Chairman, and the legal consequences of such refusal on the validity of the Speaker’s action in constituting an inquiry committee. Further, the Bench considered whether the draft decision prepared by the Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha declaring the notice “not in order” was legally sustainable. Finally, the Court addressed whether, in light of these issues, Justice Varma was entitled to any relief.

Answering the core questions arising from the challenge, the Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act mandates the constitution of a Joint Committee only in one specific situation—where notices of motion given on the same day have been admitted by both Houses. The Court clarified that it does not curtail the independent authority of either House of Parliament, if one house refuses to admit the notice for impeachment.

The Court further held that, in the absence of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Deputy Chairman was fully competent to exercise the Chairman’s powers, including the refusal to admit a notice of motion.

It further said that since the Deputy Chairman’s order refusing admission was not under challenge before the Court, there was no occasion to examine its legal effect. Even otherwise, the Court observed that such refusal would not vitiate the Speaker’s action, as the Speaker had committed no illegality in proceeding to constitute the inquiry committee under Section 3(2).

On the remaining aspects, the Court found that the draft decision prepared by the Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha, which recorded that the notice of motion was “not in order,” did not conform to the procedure envisaged under law and lacked legal justification. The Court said that the Secretary-General went beyond a purely administrative role, which was apparent from the language employed in the document itself, and that “The role of the Secretary General was confined to placing the notice before the competent authority, namely, the office of the Chairman, without expressing any conclusion as to its admissibility.”

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Datta said, “It is relevant to note that neither the Inquiry Act nor the Rules framed thereunder prescribe a mandatory form for a notice of motion. In the absence of defined parameters, it is not readily apparent on what basis the Secretary General concluded that the Notice of Motion was not ‘in order.’ Where no prescribed format exists, a notice containing allegations of impropriety against a Judge could not reasonably be treated as ineffective solely on account of perceived deficiencies in drafting or form.”

However, the Court held that this infirmity did not translate into any enforceable grievance for the petitioner.

Having answered the four issues, the Court dealing with the plea for the quashing of the Speaker’s decision to constitute a three-member inquiry committee concluded that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 is limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights and cannot be invoked to seek advisory or corrective directions relating to internal parliamentary or statutory processes in the absence of a present or inevitable violation of such rights. As no such infraction was established, and held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

The impeachment proceedings stem from an incident on March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in New Delhi. Firefighters reportedly recovered large quantities of unaccounted cash from the premises, visuals of which later surfaced showing currency bundles burning.

Justice Varma and his wife were not in Delhi at the time and were travelling in Madhya Pradesh. His daughter and elderly mother were present at the residence. Justice Varma has denied all allegations, claiming that he is being targeted.

Following the incident, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (since retired) constituted an in-house committee of three High Court judges, which submitted its report on May 4, indicting Justice Varma and recommending his removal. After Justice Varma declined to resign, the report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister, resulting in impeachment motions being initiated in Parliament.

After the Lok Sabha admitted the motion backed by 146 MPs, the Speaker constituted the inquiry committee. Justice Varma subsequently approached the Supreme Court, stating that he had not received authenticated copies of the parliamentary motions or related orders.

The inquiry committee has extended the deadline for Justice Varma’s response till January 12 and fixed January 24 for his appearance.