Prima facie not in agreement that LS Speaker couldn’t have set up inquiry committee: SC to Justice Yashwant Varma

Appearing for Justice Varma, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi cited Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to argue that the committee could have been set up only once both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha accepted the motion for impeachment.

Section 3(2) says, “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.”

Rohatgi also raised the question whether, in the absence of the Rajya Sabha Chairman — as Jagdeep Dhankhar had resigned — the deputy chairman could have rejected the motion.

However, Justice Datta said that if both Houses had accepted the motion, a joint committee would have been set up; there was nothing to say the LS Speaker could not set up a committee if the Rajya Sabha rejected the motion.

Justice Datta said, “Let us be clear. Prima facie, we are not with Mr Rohatgi on 1 and 2 – construction of the proviso and in the absence of the Chairman, whether the Deputy Chairman should not have entertained”.

“The very limited point is this: that had the Rajya Sabha also admitted the motion, you would have had the benefit of a joint committee. Now, whether it is so prejudicial to your interest that, under Article 32, we should interfere? We are only giving you until tomorrow to ponder on this point and come back and tell us.”

“Again, prima facie, we feel something in 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…,” Justice Datta added. The bench fixed the next date of hearing as Thursday.