NEW DELHI: Congress sources on Monday said the party would back the impeachment notice against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, following the government's decision to move ahead with the motion.
Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju on Thursday said that the main opposition parties had given their in-principle approval to support the motion in the upcoming monsoon session, scheduled from July 21 to August 21. He added that the process of collecting signatures could begin soon. However, the minister stated that the government was yet to decide whether the motion would be brought in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha.
With the government canvassing multi-party support to introduce the impeachment motion, Congress leaders had earlier urged Justice Varma to resign before facing formal proceedings.
Party MP and national spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi last month advised him to step down to avoid an “undignified constitutional dismissal.” Congress Whip in the Lok Sabha Manickam Tagore echoed the view, emphasising the need to preserve the judiciary’s sanctity.
In a blog published in a newspaper, Singhvi wrote, “Parliament will be spared the arduous process of debate, vote, political crossfire and, above all, institutional insult, if the judge steps down, given the overwhelming odds stacked against him. If he decides to stay, the first-ever likely constitutional dismissal of a high court judge may be historic but highly degrading to a vital organ of state.”
However, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal questioned the impeachment move. Reiterating his statement, Sibal on Saturday said the Supreme Court’s inquiry report in Justice Varma’s case had “no constitutional relevance” as an investigation can only take place under the Judges Inquiry Act.
“Under Article 124 of the Constitution, if 50 members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 members of the Lok Sabha submit a notice for moving a motion (for impeachment), then a judges inquiry committee is set up under the Judges Inquiry Act,” he said.
Only Parliament has the power to constitute such a committee, added Sibal, who is also a senior advocate.
Rijiju had said signatures would be collected after the government decides which House will take up the motion.
According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in either House, the Speaker or the Chairman, as applicable, must constitute a three-member committee to investigate the charges. The committee must consist of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a “distinguished jurist”. Rijiju said that since the matter involved corruption in the judiciary, the government wanted all political parties on board.
Commenting on the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry report—which confirmed the discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s official residence—Rijiju noted that the panel had not indicted the judge but had recommended a future course of action, since only Parliament has the power to remove a sitting judge.
A fire incident at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi in March, when he was serving at the Delhi High Court, led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of banknotes in the outhouse.
Although Justice Varma claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed panel indicted him after speaking to multiple witnesses and recording his statement.
Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna is believed to have urged Justice Varma to resign, but the judge refused. The Supreme Court subsequently repatriated him to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work.
Justice Khanna later wrote to the President and the Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal—following the prescribed process for removing members of the higher judiciary from service.