The Congress on Saturday questioned the government’s claim that the Opposition notice to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma had not been admitted in the Rajya Sabha on Monday.
The main Opposition party warned that the “institutional sabotage and constitutional transgression” being attempted could strengthen the legal challenges the Allahabad High Court judge might mount now and in the future.
Congress member and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi questioned the government’s move to negate the Opposition’s action in the Rajya Sabha by claiming the notice had been submitted but not admitted.
He quoted former Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s remarks from the Upper House Chair on Monday that referred to Section 3 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, which provides for the procedure to be followed if similar notices are submitted in both Houses on the
same day.
According to the Rajya Sabha’s record of the day’s proceedings, the Chairperson — after confirming from law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal that a similar notice had been submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker — said: “The provisions of Section 3, sub-section (2), will come into effect and the Secretary-General will take necessary steps in
this direction.”
Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi addresses a press conference, in New Delhi. PTI
Dhankhar taking up this notice and making it the property of the House — when the government had planned to take it up in the Lok Sabha — is widely believed to be the reason for his sudden resignation that evening. The official reason he cited was
his health.
Singhvi also referred to parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju’s contention that the notice to remove Justice Varma — following the discovery of large amounts of partially burnt cash on his premises — had the support of not just the Treasury benches but also the Opposition.
He asked why, then, the government was not allowing the notice in the Rajya Sabha to be taken up. “The notice in the Rajya Sabha only strengthens the case,” Singhvi argued.
“You have actually committed institutional sabotage and constitutional transgression by not following the spirit of the Act of Parliament, which would have involved the approbation in a motion of 800-odd MPs.”
Singhvi warned of another dangerous possibility, too, while hoping that things would not come to that.
“If you are going to create this statutory and constitutional confusion as to whether that proviso to Section 3, requiring both Houses to jointly constitute a committee, does come into force or does not come into force — you are either deliberately or at best unwittingly giving an additional ground or excuse to the legal challenges which Justice Varma has mounted and isentitled to mount in future,” he said.
“Why this confusion, why this unilateralism and division amongst MPs in two Houses to possibly give him a new ground to allege procedural and substantial infirmities in creating the statutory committee of enquiry, which is the most important act in his possible and potential impeachment?”
Singhvi also questioned the government’s “eloquent silence” on the notice the Opposition had submitted in December 2024 for the removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav — another Allahabad High Court judge — for engaging in “hate speech” and “incitement to communal disharmony”.
There has been little movement on the Opposition notice in the matter while the notice submitted months later for the removal of Justice Varma found prompt traction.