Lok Sabha Speaker announces three-member committee to probe allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla today formally initiated the process to remove Justice Yashwant Varma from his position as a High Court judge with the formation of a committee to investigate the discovery of cash at the former Delhi High Court judge's residence.

An in-house inquiry of three High Court judges had earlier indicted the judge and recommended his removal. The Central government then moved a motion in the Parliament to impeach the judge, who is presently posted at Allahabad High Court.

The motion signed by 146 Members of Parliament was accepted by the Speaker. In accordance with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Lok Sabha Speaker has now constituted a committee of these three members to probe the incident,

- Justice Aravind Kumar, Supreme Court judge.

- Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Madras High Court Chief Justice.

- B Vasudeva Acharya, Senior Advocate.

A judge cannot be removed without impeachment proceedings in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India states that a judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from his office without an order from the President. 

The President can do so after each House of Parliament, by a majority of not less than two-third of the members present, supports the motion. Article 218 extends this clause to High Court judges as well. 

Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1986, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, on receiving a valid impeachment notice against a judge, has to constitute a committee of judges and a jurist to probe the allegations. 

Section 3(9) states,

"The Central Government may, if required by the Speaker or the Chairman, or both, as the case may be, appoint an advocate to conduct the case against the Judge."

The report of this committee is then required to be taken up for consideration in Parliament. 

“If the motion is adopted by each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of clause (4) of article 124 or, as the case may be, in accordance with that clause read with article 218 of the Constitution, then, the misbehaviour or incapacity of the Judge shall be deemed to have been proved and an address praying for the removal of the Judge shall be presented in the prescribed manner to the President by each House of Parliament in the same session in which the motion has been adopted,” Section 6(3) of the Act states. 

A fire at Justice Varma's house on the evening of March 14 had allegedly led to the recovery of unaccounted cash by the fire fighters. 

Justice Varma and his wife were not in Delhi then and were traveling in Madhya Pradesh. Only his daughter and aged mother were at home when the fire broke out.  A video later surfaced showing bundles of cash burning in the fire.

The incident led to allegations of corruption against Justice Varma, who denied the accusations and said that it appeared to be a conspiracy to frame him. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna (who has since retired) then initiated an in-house probe into the allegations and set up the three-member committee on March 22 to conduct the inquiry.

The committee that probed Justice Varma comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman. The panel started the probe on March 25 and submitted its report to CJI Khanna on May 4.

The CJI on receiving the report of the in-house committee, asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. However, since Justice Varma declined to quit, CJI Khanna forwarded the report and the judge's response on it to the President of India and the Prime Minister for removal of the judge. Following the allegations, Justice Varma was sent back to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court. His judicial work has been taken away while further action is awaited.

On August 07, the Supreme Court dismissed Justice Varma's plea against the in-house committee report and CJI Khanna's recommendation for his removal.