New Delhi [India], July 22 (ANI): BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad stated on Monday that the impeachment motion notice against Justice Varma is a “constitutional process.”
“This is a constitutional process. The conduct of an individual judge in terms of propriety is equally important for the independence of the judiciary. We have filed our notice in this regard,” Prasad told reporters.
Earlier in the day, with MPs in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha giving notices for motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma, who was indicted by an in-house inquiry committee after semi-burnt wads of cash were found from his residence following a fire incident, a committee is likely to be constituted to probe the allegations, sources said.
The sources said the committee is likely to include a judge of Supreme Court, a chief justice from any of the High Courts and a distinguished jurist.The notices for removal of Justice Varma were given on the first day of the monsoon session of Parliament.Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday said that he has received motion, signed by MPs, for impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma.
The Chairman said it meets the numerical requirement of signing by MPs for setting in motion a process for removal of a High Court judge.Dhankhar said the process is different under the Judges Inquiry Act if the motion is presented in one House or both Houses of Parliament.
He asked Law Minister Arjum Ram Meghwal, who was present in the House, if a similar motion has been presented in Lok Sabha. The Law Minister said about 152 Lok Sabha MPs have submitted a similar resolution to the Lok Sabha Speaker.
“I need to inform you that I have received Notice of Motion…to constitute a statutory committee for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma…This has been received by me today. It has been signed by 50 members of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and thus it meets the numerical requirement of signing by MPs for setting in motion a process for removal of a High Court judge…Since the Law Minister is present here and has so indicated that a similar Motion has come to be presented by a on requisite number of MPs of Lok Sabha – more than 100, to the Lok Sabha Speaker, the provisions of Section 3(2) will come into effect and the Secretary-General will take necessary steps in this direction,” Dhankhar said.
He had also referred to the constitution of a committee, citing rules.”If the motion referred to in Subsection 1 is admitted, the Speaker, or as the case may be, Chairman, shall keep the motion pending and constitute as soon as may be for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a judge is prayed for, a committee consisting of three members of whom one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices and other judges of the Supreme Court, one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts, and one shall be a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker or, as the case may be, Chairman a Distinguished Jurist,” he said.
“And before that, it is given that if a notice given of a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for removal of a judge signed by, in the case of a notice given in the House of People, by no less than 100 members of the House, and in the case of a notice given in the Council of States by no less than 50 members of the Council, then the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman may, after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit, and after considering such material or materials, if any, as may be available to him, either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same,” he added.
Earlier in the day, Lok Sabha MPs submitted a memorandum to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to remove High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash discovery row. Over 140 Lok Sabha members signed the impeachment motion notice against Justice Varma.
MPs from several parties including BJP, Congress, TDP, JD(U), JD(S), Jan Sena Party, AGP, Shiv Sena, LJSP and CPI(M) are among the signatories.The signatories include Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and party MP KC Venugopal, BJP MPs Ravi Shankar Prasad, Rajiv Pratap Rudy, PP Chaudhary, NCP(SP) member Supriya Sule.
Congress MP K Suresh said that the party extended its support to the impeachment move against High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, joining hands with the INDIA bloc parties.”The INDIA bloc parties are also supporting this and are also signing the letters to the Speaker,” Suresh told ANI.
Justice Yashwant Varma has approached the Supreme Court challenging the in-house three-judge inquiry committee’s report and former CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Justice Varma stated that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the in-house inquiry committee before it presented its findings.
His plea came ahead of the Parliament’s monsoon session, which began on Monday. The cash was allegedly found when a fire broke out in the outhouse of judge’s residence on March 14, when he was the judge of the Delhi High Court. The judge was not present at his house. In his plea, Justice Varma alleged that the committee proceeded in a pre-determined fashion and even without finding any concrete evidence, merely drew adverse inferences against him after reversing the burden of proof.
He sought a declaration that the recommendation by the CJI on May 8, 2025 to the President and the Prime Minister for initiation of his removal as a High Court Judge is “unconstitutional and ultra vires”.”
He said that the in-house procedure, adopted via a 1999 Full Court Resolution to handle complaints against judges and preserve judicial independence while maintaining public faith, “unjustifiably extends beyond the intended scope of self-regulation and fact-finding”.
“By culminating in recommendations for removal from constitutional office, it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism that derogates from the mandatory framework under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which exclusively vest powers for removal of judges of the High Courts in Parliament through an address supported by a special majority, following an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,” stated the petition.
It further submitted the in-house, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office.”This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges,” added the plea.
Justice Varma also sought quashing of the final report dated May 3 of the in-house committee constituted by the CJI, and all consequtional actions. Invocation of the in-house procedure was “improper and invalid” since it was done in the absence of any formal complaint against Justice Varma, said the plea.
The plea said the committee denied him access to evidence, withheld CCTV footage, and offered no chance to rebut allegations.
Key witnesses were examined in his absence, violating natural justice, he added. The committee was constituted on March 22 by then CJI Khanna to probe the incident, comprising of Justices Sheel Nagu (then Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), GS Sandhawalia (then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court).
The incident occurred following a fire at his Lutyens’ Delhi home, during which semi-burnt wads of cash were reportedly found. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
