Supreme Court Notes 'Some Infirmity' In Forming Inquiry Committee On Justice Yashwant Varma; Will See If It's Grave Enough

Reliance is placed on proviso to Section 3(2) which reads: "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."

During the course of today's hearing, the bench examined whether the then Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had admitted the motion on the first day itself when it was received. If there was an admission of the motion by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, then the Deputy Chairman (who assumed the position of Chairman after Dhankhar's resignation) could not have later rejected the motion. Also, if there was an admission by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, then the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have unilaterally constituted the committee and it should have been done jointly by the LS Speaker and the RS Chairman.

"Had the Rajya Sabha also admitted the motion, he would have gotten the benefit of a joint committee. But whether it is so prejudicial to your interest that we have to interfere under Article 32?" the bench observed before adjourning the matter till tomorrow after an hour-long hearing.

Petitioner's argument

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Justice Varma, argued that if motions are moved simultaneously in both the Houses, then a Committee can be formed only jointly by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman. Referring to the affidavit filed by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, he said that the motion in the Rajya Sabha was rejected by the Deputy Chairman only on August 11. The Committee was formed on August 12 by the Lok Sabha Speaker. However, Rohatgi highlighted that the motions in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha were moved on the same day, July 11. Hence, after one house rejected the motion, the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have constituted the Committee, Rohatgi argued, relying on the proviso to Section 3(2).

Rajya Sabha Dy Chairman's rejection won't bar Lok Sabha Speaker : Bench observes

Justice Datta then asked, "If one house has rejected a motion, then where is the bar on the Lok Sabha in constituting the Committee?" Rohatgi replied that since both motions were moved on the same day, both of them require to be admitted, and only then, the Committee can be formed, that too jointly by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Justice Datta, disagreeing with Rohatgi's reading of the proviso, illustrated a hypothetical situation - 100 members of Lok Sabha are desirious of impeaching the judge and a motion is moved and it is admitted by the Speaker; however, some members of Rajya Sabha, who want to protect the judge, with a "nefarious intention", move a motion on the same day, and the motion is signed by only 49 members with one member signing twice. The Rajya Sabha Chairman rejects the motion, finding that only 49 members actually signed it. So, will this rejection automatically result in the lapse of the validly moved motion in Lok Sabha? Justice Datta expressed that "this cannot be the intention of the statute."

Justice Datta said that the proviso is silent on whether the rejection of the motion in the Rajya Sabha will bar the Lok Sabha from proceeding with it. "We have to read the silence in the provision purposively." Rohatgi contended that by the plain language of the proviso, when motions are moved in both houses on the same day, then a committee can be constituted only if both of them are admitted.

RS Deputy Chairman not competent to reject the motion : Rohatgi

Rohatgi also raised the argument that the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was not competent to reject the motion(The Rajya Sabha did not have a Chairman then, following the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar). He argued that the Deputy Chairman can only preside over the proceedings in the house in the absence of the Chairman. However, the Deputy Chairman cannot exercise any discretionary powers which are specifically vested with the Chairman. "Where the law requires the Deputy to act in place of the Chairman, it is clear. In other circumstances, Deputy cannot usurp the functions of the Chairman," he contended.

Justice Datta pointed out that since the Chairman had resigned, the Deputy Chairman will automatically step in. Rohatgi replied that the Deputy will step in only to chair the proceedings in the house. Disagreeing, Justice Datta said that the Deputy can perform "the duties of the office of the Chairman."

Dhankhar had impliedly admitted the motion : Rohatgi

Rohatgi said that the previous Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, had said that he received the motion with 50 signatures and that the procedure under Section 3(2) has been triggered. After that, the Deputy Chairman could not have rejected the motion.

"If the Chairman has said I have received 50 signatures, he says I have read and it shows that he is okay with the motion and that is signed and therefore, it meets requirement of law....it implies an admission...The substance of the case I am propounding is- the legally trained mind saw that 50 people have signed the motion and he says that it triggered S. 3. This amounts to the admission of the motion," Rohatgi said.

Solcitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that it was a mere statement by the Chairman that he had received the motion, and there was no express order of admission passed. Endorsing this position, Justice Datta also stated that there was nothing on record to show that the Chairman had admitted the motion. Rohatgi replied that there was nothing to show the contrary as well (that the Chairman had not admitted the motion).

The bench then sought for the records of the proceedings. After perusing them, Justice Datta commented, "We are finding that the Chairman has entered into the merits."

The bench observed that if the Rajya Sabha Chairman had accepted the motion, then the petitioner would have got the benefit of a committee jointly constituted by both the houses.

"If the motion was accepted(by the Chairman), then a joint committee would have been constituted. He has been deprived of the joint committee because of the rejection," Justice Datta said.

Not convinced with points 1 & 2; will examine point 3 : Bench says

The bench adjourned the hearing till tomorrow, allowing the petitioner's side to go through the documents of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. Before winding up the hearing, Justice Datta said that the bench was not prima facie convinced with the arguments on Section 3(2) proviso and the competence of the Deputy Chairman. However, the bench would examine the point whether there was an admission of the motion by the Rajya Sabha Chairman so as to warrant a joint committee. The bench will also consider if the deprivation of a joint committee is a matter causing grave prejudice to the petitioner so as to warrant interference under Article 32.

"Let us be clear. Prima facie, we are not with Mr. Rohatgi on 1 and 2 - construction of the proviso and whether in the absence of the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman should not have entertained. But very limited point is this -had the Rajya Sabha also admitted the motion, he would have gotten the benefit of a joint committee. Whether it is so prejudicial to your interest that we have to interfere under A. 32? We are only giving you time till tommorrow to ponder. Again, prima facie, we feel something is the note of the Secretary General which should not have been there. But that is not under challenge. There is some infirmity but would it go to such an extent that this entire committee has to be quashed...that you argue," Justice Datta said.

It may be recalled that in July, notices of impeachment, sponsored by 145 members of Lok Sabha, and 63 members of Rajya Sabha, were submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla and the then Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar, respectively.

Subsequently, in August, the Lok Sabha speaker had announced the Committee, which consisted of Justice Arvind Kumar of the Supreme Court, Justice M M Shrivastava, Chief Justice of Madras High Court and Vasudeva Acharya, Senior Advocate of the Karnataka High Court.

Background

The issue relates to the accidental discovery of a huge pile of currency notes at an outhouse of the official residence of Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, during a fire-fighting operation on March 14.

After the discovery led to a huge public controversy, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted an in-house inquiry committee of three judges- Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice GS Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court). Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and judicial work was withdrawn from him pending the inquiry.

The committee submitted its report, prima facie finding Justice Varma's culpability, to then CJI Khanna in May, which the CJI forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister for further action, after Justice Varma refused to heed the CJI's advice to resign.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed Justice Varma's petition challenging the in-house inquiry as well as the CJI's recommendation to remove him.

Case Details: X Vs O/O SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE|W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025