New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a plea filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, refusing to interfere with the formation of an inquiry committee set up to examine allegations of corruption against him.
Justice Varma had approached the top court challenging Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s decision to admit a notice seeking his removal and to constitute a probe panel under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. His argument rested on the claim that the process was invalid because a similar motion had earlier been declined in the Rajya Sabha by its Deputy Chairman.
With the dismissal of the petition, the three-member inquiry committee chaired by Justice Aravind Kumar can now proceed without legal obstruction. The panel had been constituted by the Speaker to investigate the charges of misconduct levelled against the judge.
While reserving its verdict earlier this month, a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma had expressed scepticism over Justice Varma’s contention that the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman lacked the authority to act on an impeachment motion. The judges questioned whether such a restrictive interpretation would leave a constitutional vacuum during the Chairman’s absence.
The Bench rejected the argument that only the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha could exercise powers under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. It observed that constitutional offices cannot remain paralysed due to the temporary unavailability of a presiding authority.
Justice Datta pointed out that when the Vice President can assume the President’s functions in certain situations, it follows that the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha can also discharge the Chairman’s duties when required. “Governance cannot come to a halt,” the court noted, stressing that constitutional mechanisms must remain functional at all times.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Justice Varma, had argued that Article 91 of the Constitution could not be used to justify the Deputy Chairman exercising discretionary powers reserved for the Chairman under the 1968 Act. The court, however, was not persuaded.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both Houses of Parliament, countered that such an interpretation would undermine the very purpose of the law. He warned that denying the Deputy Chairman this authority would make the statutory framework impractical, particularly given strict timelines for inquiry committees to submit their reports.
Mehta also highlighted that the law provides for extensions of time and other procedural decisions, which would become impossible if no one could act in the Chairman’s absence. Accepting Justice Varma’s argument, he said, would defeat the balance the law seeks to maintain between safeguarding judicial independence and ensuring accountability.
The allegations against Justice Varma surfaced after partially burnt bundles of currency notes were reportedly recovered from his official residence in New Delhi in March last year. Following the incident, he was transferred from the Delhi High Court back to the Allahabad High Court.
Separately, an internal inquiry had earlier been initiated within the judiciary by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, who constituted a three-member committee of senior judges to look into the matter.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the statutory inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act can now move forward, bringing the focus back to the substantive examination of the allegations rather than procedural challenges.
