The notice for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma is likely to be taken up in the Lok Sabha, with that “received” by former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar in the Rajya Sabha unlikely to be considered.
The announcement by Dhankhar, as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, that he had “received” a notice for the removal of Justice Varma from 63 Opposition MPs is believed to have triggered the series of events leading to his resignation as VP.
Speaking to reporters on Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said: “All the political parties have agreed that the removal of Justice Yashwant Verma has to be a joint call. Now there should be no issue with regard to which House it has to be moved. Once we have agreed that it will be moved in the Lok Sabha… it will be concurred in the Rajya Sabha as per rule… So we should not remain under any doubt that the discussion and the motion, everything, will begin in the Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha, as per rule, will give concurrence and there will be a thorough discussion in the Rajya Sabha also.”
This was decided by consensus among all parties, Rijiju emphasised. “The agreement amongst all parties is that the motion for removal of Justice Varma will begin in the Lok Sabha. It will be taken up in the Lok Sabha and then subsequently it will be concurred by the Rajya Sabha. That is the agreement of all the parties.”
While presiding over the Rajya Sabha Monday, hours before he resigned, Dhankhar said he had “received a notice of motion” from the Opposition for constituting a statutory committee for removal of Justice Varma. He added: “I direct the Secretary General to find out whether a similar motion has been moved in the House of People, the Lok Sabha… This is being done for the purpose that under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, the procedure (in such a case) is different.”
Under the Act, if a notice to remove a judge is presented in both the Houses of Parliament on the same day, then the committee for inquiry is to be constituted jointly by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Since Dhankhar’s resignation, the post of Chairman is vacant.
Having made its intent clear to act on impeaching Justice Varma – over the alleged recovery of a stack of notes from his home – the government, which had initiated its notice in the Lok Sabha, was taken by surprise by Dhankhar’s move. The government notice, signed by 145 MPs, including Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, had been handed over to the Lok Sabha Speaker earlier in the day.
Dhankhar’s move meant the Opposition could steal the government limelight on an issue of crucial import, dealing with judicial accountability.
Sources told The Indian Express that officials in the Secretariats of the two Houses are now verifying whether remarks made by Dhankhar as Rajya Sabha Chair on the Opposition notice were “legally valid”. That rests on determining whether Dhankhar’s statement meant that the notice had only been “received” by the Chair, or “accepted” by the Chair.
As per one line of opinion, Dhankhar’s remarks do not amount to “admission” of the Opposition notice as they “didn’t follow the formalities”. If the notice in the Rajya Sabha is determined to be only “received” by the House and not yet “accepted”, the motion in the Lok Sabha will be considered to be at play.
Former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary said a mere announcement by Dhankhar didn’t mean much, as there is nothing in the process for removal of a judge concerning that. “When a presiding officer receives a notice, he or she has to make a preliminary examination into the notice, look into the evidence annexed by them and decide the admissibility. They can reject or accept it. In the issue of this notice, the Chairman (Dhankhar) does not seem to have done any of these,” Achary said, adding that “there is no requirement regarding reading it (the notice) in the House”.
Sources said the government is also apprehensive about legal issues if Dhankhar’s remarks are considered as “acceptance” of the notice to remove Justice Varma, as this would entail setting up a joint committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman to probe the charges against him. Since the office of the Vice President is currently vacant, the presiding officer of the Rajya Sabha is Deputy Chairman Harivansh. Whether Harivansh can take the place of the Chairman in constituting the committee is uncertain legal territory.
The constitutional provisions regarding the removal of a judge mention specifically the ‘Chairman of the Rajya Sabha’ and not the ‘Vice President’. But, sources said, the government does not want any room for a legal challenge, delaying the impeachment process against Justice Varma.
But, if the notice is considered as accepted only in the Lok Sabha, then it is up to Speaker Om Birla to appoint the three-member inquiry committee, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The committee is required to have one member who is either the CJI or a judge of the Supreme Court; a member from among the Chief Justices or judges of high courts; and a distinguished jurist.
One reason the government believes it is on solid ground in not considering the Rajya Sabha notice is that there are doubts whether it was “complete” or “valid”, since it did not have any annexures or supporting material attached to make a case for impeaching Justice Varma.
The motion reportedly only cites then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna’s communication to the President and Prime Minister calling for impeachment of Justice Varma, along with the findings of the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry report. Sources point out that the Presidential secretariat had communicated with the Lok Sabha Speaker regarding this inquiry report, and not the Rajya Sabha.
However, Achary said the law itself does not require attached annexures to accept a notice.