NEW DELHI: Amid the raging controversy over the alleged recovery of cash from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Tuesday held a meeting of floor leaders to discuss the issues surrounding it.
The meeting was held a day after the Rajya Sabha Chairman interacted with Leader of the House JP Nadda and Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge over the issue and had praised Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna for putting all the facts in the public domain.
Sources said that the meeting was called not to arrive at a conclusion, but to assess the views of a cross section of political parties over the issue.
Earlier in the day, while announcing his decision in the House to convene such a meeting, Dhankhar had said it was the right time to “reiterate the National Judicial Appointments Committee (NJAC) Act”, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2015.
“I have scheduled a meeting after seeking convenience at 4.30 pm today with the floor leaders as suggested by Leader of the Opposition and agreed to by Leader of the House and timing has also been indicated to the concerned,” Dhankhar said, after rejecting a notice under rule 267 moved by Haris Beeran of IUML who wanted a discussion on the issue.
“I am sure we will have a very fruitful interaction and find a way out, because legislature and judiciary perform optimally when they perform best in their respective realm with expedition,” the Chairman said in the House.
“I seek your suggestions on one very important point. What emanated from Indian Parliament as a historic development with rare convergence of unity since Independence found acceptance by needed state legislatures. We need to reflect on what happened,” he said, referring to the NJAC Act.
Dhankhar said, “This House, keeping dignity in mind, demonstrating dignified conduct, unanimously created a legal system in 2015 and that constitutional structure that emanated unanimously with one abstention from the Parliament endorsed by state legislatures should be rule of law because it was sanctified by the President by appending her signatures under Article 111.” He went on to add, “Now is the befitting occasion for all of us to reiterate that because that was a visionary step endorsed by Parliament. And imagine if that had taken place, things would have been different.”
Noting that he does not wish to be judgmental, Dhankhar said, “But one thing which has found widespread acceptability in the country is that the entire material available with the Supreme Court has been shared with the people at large and with the constitution of a committee with that speed, I’m sure things will be available to us.”
He said, “Now, we are at a crossroads. I strongly urge members to reflect. There can be no breach by any institution of what emanated from the Parliament, endorsed by legislatures. And that should again, I reiterate, be the mechanism holding the field. It is time for us, having seen such an extraordinarily painful scenario...Innocence is something which we take at a very high level till someone is proven guilty.”
He added, “So, we will come back to the House on this very critical important issue that goes much beyond the judicial mess. It concerns sovereignty of Parliament, supremacy of Parliament, and whether we are at all relevant.”
