However, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal questioned the impeachment move. Reiterating his statement, Sibal on Saturday said the Supreme Court’s inquiry report in Justice Varma’s case had “no constitutional relevance” as an investigation can only take place under the Judges Inquiry Act.“Under Article 124 of the Constitution, if 50 members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 members of the Lok Sabha submit a notice for moving a motion (for impeachment), then a judges inquiry committee is set up under the Judges Inquiry Act,” he said.Only Parliament has the power to constitute such a committee, added Sibal, who is also a senior advocate.Rijiju had said signatures would be collected after the government decides which House will take up the motion.According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in either House, the Speaker or the Chairman, as applicable, must constitute a three-member committee to investigate the charges. The committee must consist of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a “distinguished jurist”. Rijiju said that since the matter involved corruption in the judiciary, the government wanted all political parties on board.Commenting on the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry report—which confirmed the discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s official residence—Rijiju noted that the panel had not indicted the judge but had recommended a future course of action, since only Parliament has the power to remove a sitting judge.A fire incident at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi in March, when he was serving at the Delhi High Court, led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of banknotes in the outhouse.Although Justice Varma claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed panel indicted him after speaking to multiple witnesses and recording his statement.Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna is believed to have urged Justice Varma to resign, but the judge refused. The Supreme Court subsequently repatriated him to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work.Justice Khanna later wrote to the President and the Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal—following the prescribed process for removing members of the higher judiciary from service.
Source link
