Today, On 8th January, In the Justice Yashwant Varma Impeachment Row, The Supreme Court observed that if the Vice President can assume the President’s responsibilities when absent, then similarly, the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman should also be empowered to perform the Chairman’s duties during the Chairman’s absence.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court stated on Thursday that if the vice president can take on the president’s responsibilities when the president is absent, then the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman should also be able to fulfill the chairman’s duties in the chairman’s absence.
This statement came from a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma, who dismissed claims made on behalf of Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma that the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman lacks authority to reject a motion.
According to the Judges Act of 1968, only the Speaker and the chairman have the power to accept or reject motions against judges.
Justice Varma was sent back from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after bundles of burnt currency notes were discovered at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14.
The bench has reserved its decision on Justice Varma’s challenge regarding the legality of the parliamentary panel investigating corruption charges against him, asking the involved parties to submit written arguments by Monday.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, representing Varma, argued that Article 91 of the Constitution, which allows the deputy chair of the Rajya Sabha to take over the chairman’s duties when needed, does not extend to granting the deputy discretionary powers specifically assigned to the chairman under the Judges Act.
Luthra noted that the situation could have been postponed until a new chairman was appointed, especially since the former Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankar, had resigned, allowing Deputy Chairman Harivansh to reject the impeachment motion.
Rohatgi contended that the Judges Act does not empower the deputy chairman to accept or reject the impeachment motion; only the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha chairman hold that authority.
The bench countered this, asserting,
“The Constitution does not work in a vacuum. If the vice president can exercise the functions of the president in the absence of the president, can’t the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman exercise the functions of the chairman in the latter’s absence?”
Justice Datta elaborated that if the vice president can sign judicial appointment warrants as acting president when the president is unavailable, then it follows that the deputy chairman should have the authority to handle the impeachment motion while the chairman is absent.
Justice Datta remarked,
“The country has to move on. There cannot be any vacuum,”
Rohatgi maintained that while the deputy chairman can perform the usual duties of the chairman, the Judges Act refers specifically to the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha chairman. He pointed out that there is no provision indicating that chairman includes the deputy chairman.
Justice Datta indicated that the definition clauses in the Act use the phrase “unless the context otherwise requires.”
Rohatgi further asserted that there is no room for interpretation beyond the Act and stressed that a judge facing impeachment has the right to insist that the legal procedure is rigidly adhered to.
He claimed that the deputy chairman’s action in rejecting the motion was ultra vires, and noted that one House cannot proceed with an inquiry while the other has dismissed the motion based on the same grounds.
Justice Datta responded that this line of reasoning would render the Act unworkable and emphasized that the court cannot endorse a legal framework that could be misused.
Rohatgi countered that the test of prejudice is irrelevant when there is a clear procedural infraction designed to shield judges from frivolous impeachment motions. He argued that both Houses must consider the motions, as failing to do so would unfairly prejudice the petitioner.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both Houses of Parliament, stated that any interpretation that undermines the purpose of the law and renders provisions unworkable should be avoided. He warned that if the deputy chairman cannot act as the chairman, it would undermine the process.
Mehta stated,
“If the chairman is absent and the deputy chairman, according to their interpretation, cannot act as chairman, would the motion filed in the Rajya Sabha fail? It would if their argument is right.”
Such a view would defeat the aim of the Act, which is both to protect judicial officers and to establish a mechanism for independent oversight.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta concluded his final arguments with a courteous note, saying, “I’ll conclude now. I’ll not come in the way mode. Your lordships have the heavy workload for tomorrow.”
The Bench responded with a touch of humour, noting,
“It’s only on Friday evening we realized that tomorrow we don’t have to go to court.”
Adding to the light moment, the Bench further quipped,
“Not for you. Your office works on Saturdays.”
The exchange highlights the rare instances of humour in the apex court, reflecting the lighter side of legal proceedings amidst serious judicial deliberations. Such moments, while brief, often ease the intensity of courtroom discussions and showcase the human side of legal officers and judges.
Earlier, On Wednesday, the Supreme Court had noted that there were no restrictions under the Judges Inquiry Act preventing Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla from forming an inquiry committee to look into the corruption allegations against Varma, despite a similar motion being rejected in the Rajya Sabha.
Previously, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had initiated an internal inquiry and set up a three-member committee consisting of Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman.
Read Live Coverage
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
