NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the legality of the parliamentary panel probing alleged corruption charges against him.
A two-judge Bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Dipankar Datta and comprising Justice S C Sharma, pronounced the verdict and rejected Justice Varma’s plea.
“Varma is not entitled to any relief and that no interference is called for. 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," the bench said.
Petitioner is, thus, not entitled to any relief. For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for. The present writ petition stands dismissed,” the Bench added.
The top court had reserved its verdict on January 8 after hearing senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Justice Varma, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both Houses of Parliament.
During the hearing, Rohatgi and Luthra questioned the procedure adopted in setting up the parliamentary panel and argued that under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, only the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are entitled to admit a motion for removal of a judge from office.
The court said, without venturing further into the matter, “we consider it appropriate to note that the manner in which the notice of motion was processed at the Secretariat level does not fully align with the role contemplated under law”.
“These observations are confined solely to the procedural aspects noted above and are occasioned by the particular course of action adopted at the Secretariat level. Since the decision of the Deputy Chairman declining to admit the motion is not under challenge, and has been taken independently in accordance with his constitutional role, these observations do not, in any manner, impinge upon or affect the validity of that decision,” the court added.
It expressed hope that no other judge would face proceedings for removal on allegations of misbehaviour.
“Should, at all, there be an unfortunate recurrence of a Judge prima facie indulging in misbehaviour and the representatives of the people of the nation demand an investigation based on allegations of misbehaviour, it would be just and proper if Secretariat exercises restraint and leaves it to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, as the case may be, to decide the question of admission of a motion instead of concluding as to what should be the future course of action,” it said.
The Supreme Court, however, criticised the procedure adopted by the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha, which became the basis on which the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected the impeachment motion against Justice Varma.
Statedly, the Secretary General made a substantive assessment of the notice of motion, whereas the law only contemplates that administrative formalities must be met.
The court said that in this case, since the Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar had resigned before the motion was admitted, it was ultimately decided and rejected by the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
This was also challenged by Justice Varma, who argued that the Deputy Chairman is not a competent authority under the 1968 Act to reject or accept the motion. The court, however, rejected this argument.
As the decision of the Deputy Chairman was not under challenge, the court chose to address the manner in which the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha opined that the Rajya Sabha motion was “not in order”, without those observations in any manner affecting the decision.
Justice Varma contended that the procedure prescribed for the constitution of a committee under Section 3 of the Inquiry Act had not been followed, thereby infringing his Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court pronounced the judgment on the plea filed by Justice Varma challenging the impeachment proceedings against him on the ground that the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, was not followed and that the motion was not passed by both Houses on the same day.
Knocking on the doors of the apex court, Justice Varma, against whom a Parliamentary Committee has been constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to probe alleged corruption charges, sought appropriate orders in the matter.
He also challenged the legality of the three-member committee constituted solely by the Lok Sabha under the procedure provided by the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
The court dismissed Justice Varma’s plea after citing several verdicts and case studies.
Justice Varma questioned the procedure adopted in setting up the parliamentary panel and said that under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, only the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are entitled to admit a motion for removal of a judge from office.
In his plea, Justice Varma said that the introduction of a motion regarding his removal in both Houses of Parliament mandates that the constitution of a three-member committee must be carried out jointly by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, and not unilaterally by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
Earlier, the three-member inquiry panel allegedly found piles of burnt and unburnt cash at the residence of Justice Varma after examining more than 55 witnesses, and recommended his removal.
In its 64-page report, the panel indicted him for misconduct. “This committee holds the money/cash was found in the storeroom located within the premises of 30 Tughlaq Crescent... officially occupied by Justice Varma,” the probe panel said.
It further added that there was no plausible explanation on the part of Justice Varma with respect to his statement that he did not have any knowledge of the cash. “It is unbelievable. If there was any conspiracy, why did he not file a complaint or inform the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India?” it said.
Justice Varma has claimed innocence in the entire case and said he has “not done any wrongdoing and offence”.