Prima facie not in agreement that LS Speaker couldn’t have set up inquiry committee: SC to Justice Yashwant Varma
The apex court was hearing Justice Yashwant Varma’s writ petition challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act to hold a probe in the matter of cash recovery.
The court was hearing Justice Varma’s writ petition challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to hold an inquiry in the matter. (File image)
The Supreme Court said Wednesday that it did not prima facie agree with Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma’s contention that the Lok Sabha Speaker could not have constituted the committee to hold an inquiry into the recovery of burnt cash from his official residence in Delhi when the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the motion for impeaching him.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S C Sharma, however, said it will examine if the question is so prejudicial to his interests as to warrant the court’s intervention.
Advertisement
The court was hearing Justice Varma’s writ petition challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to hold an inquiry in the matter.
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.”
Advertisement
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.
The court was hearing Justice Varma’s writ petition challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to hold an inquiry in the matter. (File image) 
Share
