SC reserves order on Justice Varma’s probe panel plea

If the Vice-President can exercise the functions of the President in the latter’s absence, then why the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman cannot exercise the functions of the Chairman in the absence of the Chairman, the Supreme Court wondered on Thursday.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SC Sharma refused to agree with the submission made on behalf of Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma that the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman had no power to reject a motion and, under the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, only the Speaker and the Chairman have the power to accept or reject a motion against a judge.

Justice Varma was sent from the Delhi High Court to his parent Allahabad High Court after burnt wads of currency notes were found at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14 last year.

Reserving its verdict on Justice Varma’s petition challenging the legality of the parliamentary panel probing corruption charges against him, the Bench asked the parties to submit their written submissions by Monday.

On behalf of Varma, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra submitted that Article 91 of the Constitution, which allowed the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman to perform the duties of the office of the Chairman in his absence, could not be a basis for the Deputy Chairman to exercise the discretionary powers specifically vested in the Chairman, according to the Judges (Inquiry) Act.

However, the Bench said, “The Constitution does not work in a vacuum. If the VP can exercise the functions of the President in the absence of the President, can’t the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman exercise the functions of the Chairman in the latter’s absence?”

Justice Datta said, “In the absence of the President, if the VP can sign the warrants of appointment for judges in his capacity as acting President, then why can’t the Deputy Chairman not accept or reject the impeachment motion in the absence of the Chairman.”

“The country has to move on. There cannot be any vacuum,” Justice Datta said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for both Houses of Parliament, said “any interpretation that defeats the object and makes some provision unworkable should be avoided”.

“If the Deputy Chairman cannot exercise the power of the Chairman, then the proviso will become unworkable. The inquiry committee has to submit the report within three months and it becomes functus officio (having performed the duties) after that.

“If there is no Chairman, then who will grant the time for extension to the inquiry committee, if it’s not a joint committee (in case a motion is filed only in the Rajya Sabha)?” he submitted.

He added that this may not be a ground to interpret and take away the power conferred by the Constitution upon the Deputy Chairman in the absence of the Chairman.

“If the Chairman is absent and the Deputy Chairman, according to their (Varma’s) interpretation cannot act as chairman, would the motion filed in the Rajya Sabha fail? It would if their argument is right. This interpretation will defeat the object. The object is to protect the judicial officer, but also to give a mechanism under the statute that it is being done independently,” Mehta added.

On Wednesday, the top court orally observed that there was no bar under the Judges Inquiry Act on Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla setting up an inquiry committee to probe corruption charges against Varma after a similar motion was rejected in the Rajya Sabha.