SC dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma’s challenge against Inquiry Committee

On 16 January, the Supreme Court dismissed Justice Yashwant Varma’s writ petition challenging the constitution of a Parliamentary Inquiry Committee to probe corruption allegations against him under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

The controversy surrounded the interpretation of Section 3(2) of the Act. The first proviso contemplates a situation in which notices are given in both Houses on the same day. It states that “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”. A Joint Committee should be constituted by the Speaker and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in such situations. The second proviso states that a Committee may be formed by the Speaker or the Chairman of the House depending on where the motion was admitted first.

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma held that the first proviso to Section 3(2) applies only where motions moved in both Houses of Parliament on the same day are admitted in both Houses. Moreover, it does not apply in instances where a motion is rejected by one house.

We summarise the 60-page judgement authored by Justice Datta.

Construction of the first proviso to Section 3(2)

Justice Varma had argued that the proviso to Sec 3(2) states that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha cannot constitute a Committee if a motion is moved and admitted in both Houses on the same day. Notably, the Chairman, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, had resigned on the day of the motion. Subsequently, the Deputy Chairman had rejected the motion. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha went on and constituted a three-member committee. According to Justice Varma, when notices are given in both Houses on the same day, and the motion is not admitted in one house, the Speaker or the Chairman ceases to have the authority to proceed with the motion.

The Court rejected this interpretation. The judgement held that the proviso caters to a situation where a motion is admitted in both Houses. It does not suggest that the Presiding Officer cannot proceed with a motion because it was rejected in another house. The Speaker or Chairman can continue with the motion independently.

Reading such a consequence into the statute would amount to supplying words which the legislature has consciously not used. The Bench observed that a proviso cannot be read so as to defeat or nullify the substantive provision to which it is appended.

The power to constitute a Committee vests in the Speaker or the Chairman upon admission of the motion. Constituting an independent committee is only barred when both houses admit the motion.

The judgement stated that the interpretation suggested by Justice Varma would lead to consequences where the proviso could be used as a tool to obstruct the process. This would put members to “square one” and they would be required to initiate a fresh process. This would undermine the autonomy of each House of Parliament.

Accordingly, the Court held that where notices are moved on the same day but admitted in only one House, the Presiding Officer of that House may independently constitute the Inquiry Committee.

Competence of the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha

Justice Varma had argued that the Deputy Chairman had no authority to refuse the motion since the Act refers only to the “Chairman”. He argued that the Deputy Chairman can exercise authority only in limited and specific circumstances.

The Court held that Article 91 mandates that the Deputy Chairman must perform the duties of the Chairman when their office is vacant. The judgement observed that the Act cannot be read in isolation of Article 91, as an interpretation contrary to the constitutional scheme would create a constitutional vacuum.

Effect of refusal by the Deputy Chairman on the Speaker’s action

For the sake of the argument, the Court held that the Speaker’s action would not be invalidated if the refusal of the Deputy Chairman is held illegal. The Court reasoned that there was no motion admitted in the Rajya Sabha on the day the Speaker constituted the committee.

The Bench noted that an illegal refusal would lead to reconsideration of the motion in the Rajya Sabha. It could not retroactively invalidate a lawful exercise of power already undertaken by the Speaker.

Draft decision prepared by the Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha

The Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha had observed various deficiencies in the notice and stated that it was not in order. This draft decision was placed before the Deputy Chairman, who concurred with the Secretary-General and refused to admit the notice.

The Court found that the manner in which the notice of motion was processed at the Secretariat level does not fully align with contemplated law, as the Act does not require a “substantive scrutiny” at that stage. It disapproved of the Secretary-General examining the tenability of allegations, factual correctness or drafting quality.

The Court held that the Secretary-General’s role is confined to administrative assistance and does not extend to performing any function that has the “trappings of an adjudicatory exercise”. Any such evaluation, the Court observed, would be inconsistent with the scheme of Section 3 of the Act.

However, the Court clarified that these observations were “purely academic” and only made to guide future instances.

Maintainability of the writ petition and entitlement to relief

The Court held that the constitution of an Inquiry Committee does not entail civil consequences on Justice Varma. The statutory framework contains multiple safeguards at subsequent stages, including consideration by both Houses of Parliament under Article 124(4).

The Court noted that Justice Varma had not challenged the decision of the Deputy Chairman refusing admission of the motion and in the absence of pleadings and a prayer seeking quashing of that decision, no relief could be granted. It observed that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to invalidate an order which has not been specifically challenged

Dismissing Justice Varma’s petition, the Court held that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha acted within jurisdiction in constituting the Inquiry Committee. The Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was competent to refuse admission of the motion. In the absence of a challenge to that refusal, Justice Varma is not entitled to any relief.