SC flags flaw in bid to remove Justice Yashwant Varma

THe sublime margaret court on tues observed a john r. Major blemish in the ongoing removal proceedings in Parliament against justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad high court , who is at the centre of a controversy following the recovery of cash from his official residence in Delhi.Justice Varma, who identified himself as “X” in the petition filed through advocate Vaibhav Niti last week, submitted that the proviso to section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 requires that when the motion for removal of a judge is moved simultaneously before both the Houses of Parliament, no committee can be constituted till the motion is admitted in both Houses. Further, it provides that once the motion is admitted by both Houses, the inquiry committee should be jointly constituted by the Speaker and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.In the present case, the motion for removal of justice Varma was moved in both Houses on July 21. However, the Speaker admitted the motion on August 12 and formed a committee while the motion in the Rajya Sabha is still pending.“Our Parliament has several legal experts. Then how does this happen? Did the members of Parliament not notice that this cannot be done,” observed a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, as it issued notice on the judge’s petition and posted the matter for further hearing on January 7.The court sought responses from the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker and the secretary generals of the two Houses of Parliament on the legal challenge presented by justice Varma. The development comes in the wake of proceedings initiated by the three-member committee constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on August 12.The committee constituted under section 3 of the 1968 Act comprises Supreme Court’s justice Aravind Kumar, chief justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava of the Madras high court, and senior advocate BV Acharya. This committee has already issued notice to justice Varma and asked him to submit his statement in defence of the charges by January 12, 2026 and to physically appear on January 24.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the judge along with a battery of senior lawyers pointed out that the Speaker’s decision to unilaterally appoint the committee violates section 3(2). This provision reads as follows: “Provided that where notices of a motion referred to in sub-section (1) are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman.”Rohatgi said that as per section 3(2) of the 1968 Act, the Speaker was required to await for the other House to admit the motion and the committee had to be constituted by the two Houses. However, on July 21, when the motion was presented in Rajya Sabha, an unprecedented event took place as the then Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar, who is the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, abruptly resigned from office.The bench asked Rohatgi how such an oversight by the Parliament could happen. “Probably, there are far more important things than this for the members of Parliament to consider,“ Rohatgi said, evoking a response from the bench, “What can be more important than this.”Besides Rohatgi, the other senior lawyers appearing for the judge included Rakesh Dwivedi, Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Aggarwal, and Jayant Mehta. They did not request for a stay of the proceedings realising that the matter will be heard before the January 12 deadline for the judge to file his defence.Already, justice Varma has written to the committee stating his position that the inquiry panel is “coram non judice” a Latin term that refers to a proceeding which lacks jurisdiction or authority. He submitted, “The two Houses of Parliament have equal stature. So the motion has to be accepted by both Houses and a joint committee should be formed. This is not an ordinary departmental enquiry proceeding. In matters of removal of judge, a constitutional obligation is cast upon the Parliament.”“What if one House admits the motion and another does not,” the bench asked to which Rohatgi responded, “In that case, the motion must be withdrawn and filed afresh.”The petition said that the law on removal of the judge provided under Article 124 for Supreme Court judges and Article 217 for high court judges requires strict interpretation of the 1968 Act to ensure independence of judiciary and to prevent any arbitrary removal of a judge.“The action of the Speaker in unilaterally constituting a committee is contrary to Section 3 of the 1968 Act and unconstitutional,” the petition said. It further stated that the procedure prescribed under section 3 of the Act seeks to avoid an “incongruous situation” where one of the motions may be rejected by either House.It was on March 14, a fire broke out at the residence of justice Varma and while dousing the fire, currency notes were found stacked in a sack. On March 22, a three-member in-house panel formed by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna began its probe while justice Varma was transferred to his parent high court at Allahabad. The report by the in-house panel in May concluded that cash was indeed found at the residence. While justice Varma denied the allegation and refused to step down, the CJI recommended his case for removal to the President and Prime Minister.