NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its decision on a plea filed by Allahabad high court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the validity of a parliamentary committee probing corruption charges against him. The case relates to the recovery of a large sum of cash from his official residence last year.The apex body has also refused to grant him more time to file his response before the committee.A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma declined Justice Varma’s request for an extension to submit his reply to the parliamentary panel, which is scheduled to receive responses on January 12. Justice Varma has questioned the legality of the committee set up by the Lok Sabha Speaker, arguing that it is unsustainable under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
Justice Varma has contended that when a motion seeking the removal of a judge is introduced in both Houses of Parliament on the same day, an inquiry committee can be formed only if the motion is admitted in both Houses.In his case, he argued, the motion was rejected by the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha, rendering the committee invalid. He has challenged the admission of the Lok Sabha motion, seeking it to be declared “contrary to law”.The case stems from events on March 14 last year, when a large sum of currency was found at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi, where he was then serving as a high court judge. He was later transferred to the Allahabad high court.Following the recovery, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna ordered an in-house inquiry and constituted a three-member panel, which submitted its report on May 4, finding Justice Varma guilty of misconduct.After receiving the report, the then CJI asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. When he refused to step down, the report was forwarded to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. On August 7, the Supreme Court dismissed Justice Varma’s plea challenging the in-house inquiry report. Days later, on August 12, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted a separate three-member parliamentary committee to probe the charges.During an earlier hearing on December 16, the Supreme Court had agreed to examine Justice Varma’s challenge to the constitution of the Lok Sabha inquiry panel. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the judge, pointed to what he described as a procedural lapse, submitting that the inquiry committee could not be formed unilaterally by the Lok Sabha Speaker when notices of the removal motion were given in both Houses on the same day.“Where the notices of the motion are ‘given’ to the Houses on the same date, no committee will be constituted, unless the motion is being admitted in both Houses,” Rohatgi had argued. He added that such a committee must be constituted jointly by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
