The Supreme Court upheld the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to form a committee to investigate Justice Yashwant Varma.
The inquiry relates to allegations of burnt cash found at Justice Varma's Delhi residence in March 2025.
The court stated that constitutional safeguards for judges cannot impede the removal process.
The committee includes Justice Aravind Kumar, Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and Senior Advocate B.V. Acharya.
Motions for Justice Varma’s removal were introduced in both Houses of Parliament in August 2025.
Detailed Insights:
The case originated from motions in Parliament to remove Justice Varma, following the discovery of burnt cash at his residence.
Justice Varma argued that since removal notices were given in both Houses on the same day, a Joint Committee should have been formed.
The Supreme Court rejected Justice Varma's argument, stating that the rejection of a motion in one House does not prevent the other House from proceeding legally.
The court clarified that the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has the authority to reject a motion in the Chairman's absence, as per Article 91 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a proviso in a statute should not nullify the main provision unless such intention is explicitly stated.
Key Concepts Involved:
Impeachment: A formal process by which a public official is accused of unlawful activity, potentially leading to their removal from office.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: An act of the Parliament of India to regulate the procedure for inquiring into allegations against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Article 91 of the Constitution: Deals with the power of the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to perform the duties of the Chairman in certain circumstances.