SC reserves order on justice Varma’s plea

THe sublime margaret margaret court on th reserved orders on the petition filed by Allahabad heights court’s justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the removal proceeding initiated against him in the Lok Sabha.The top court observed that the task before the court is to balance the right of the judge being proceeded against with the will of the people represented by members of Parliament who have moved the motion.A three-member inquiry committee formed by the Lok Sabha Speaker had asked justice Varma to respond to the memo of charges against him by January 12. While his lawyers urged the court for an extension of time, the court refused to interfere with the ongoing process.The discovery of unaccounted cash at the judge’s residence in Delhi, while he was a judge of the Delhi high court, triggered separate motions for his removal on July 21 in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. However, on August 12, the Speaker admitted the motion and formed the committee to inquire into the allegations against the judge under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said, “We have to balance in this case the judge being proceeded against and the members desirous of moving the motion as they represent the will of the people.”In his petition, justice Varma claimed that as per the proviso to section 3(2) of the 1968 Act, if a motion for removal of a judge is presented on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are required to constitute a joint committee. Since this was not done, Justice Varma alleged a procedural flaw to set aside the removal proceedings against him.A battery of senior lawyers led by Mukul Rohatgi, Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Agarwal and Jayant Mehta raised other grounds of challenge, pointing out that in an unexpected turn of events, the then Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned on July 21 and records placed before the court by the Lok Sabha secretary general revealed that on August 11, the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman refused to admit the motion for being “defective”.The senior lawyers argued that the decision to admit or reject a motion lies within the sole discretion of the Chairman and that in his absence, the Deputy Chairman could not have passed the order, which ought to have awaited the appointment of a new Vice-President.The bench observed that if the Deputy Chairman was acting as Chairman during a vacancy, the entire process could not be kept in limbo. Referring to section 3(2) of the Act, which provides for removal on grounds of “misbehaviour” and “incapacity”, the court gave the example of a physically incapacitated judge and asked why the nation should continue to pay for a judge unable to function due to ill-health.Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for both Houses of Parliament, said the order of the Deputy Chairman had not been challenged by any Rajya Sabha member as their purpose stood achieved. Mehta pointed out that on July 21, the Rajya Sabha Chairman had said Parliament must speak with “one voice” and that as a result, the inquiry committee had been constituted and had called for the judge’s explanation.Mehta cautioned that any exercise by the court under Article 32 to interfere at this stage would truncate the process and force it to begin afresh, even where there was no motive attributed to the Deputy Chairman, the members of the House or the inquiry panel. He also explained that Article 91 of the Constitution allows the Deputy Chairman to step into the Chairman’s role in the event of absence or resignation.In March last year, a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s residence, when he was a judge of the Delhi high court, during which currency notes stacked in a sack were found. Following an in-house probe, then chief justice of India Sanjiv Khanna recommended action against the judge to the Prime Minister and the President.