Today, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who has challenged the constitution of a parliamentary inquiry committee probing corruption allegations against him.

A division bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma reserved orders after hearing a case today by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra on behalf of Justice Varma.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

During the hearing, Rohatgi and Luthra questioned the procedure adopted for constituting the inquiry panel, arguing that under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, only the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are empowered to admit a motion seeking the removal of a judge. 

Pn the other hand, Mehta submitted that once removal motions are admitted in both Houses of Parliament, the inquiry committee is required to be jointly constituted by the Speaker and the Chairman. He maintained that the process followed was in accordance with law.

Yesterday, during the proceedings, the Top Court observed that the Judges Act does not bar the Lok Sabha Speaker from constituting an inquiry committee, even if a similar motion was rejected in the Rajya Sabha.

Justice Varma was transferred from the Delhi High Court back to the Allahabad High Court after burnt bundles of currency notes were reportedly recovered from his official residence in New Delhi on March 14.

The Supreme Court had agreed on December 16 to examine Justice Varma’s challenge to the inquiry committee and issued notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker’s office and the Secretaries General of both Houses of Parliament.

Earlier, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had initiated an in-house inquiry and constituted a three-member committee comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court. The committee submitted its report on May 4, holding Justice Varma guilty of misconduct.

After Justice Varma declined to resign, the CJI forwarded the inquiry report along with the judge’s response to the President and the Prime Minister, paving the way for impeachment proceedings.

Subsequently, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted a multi-party motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal on August 12 and constituted a three-member parliamentary inquiry committee comprising Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya.

Justice Varma has sought the quashing of the Speaker’s decision, the admission of the removal motion, and all consequential proceedings, arguing that the entire process is unconstitutional and contrary to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968