The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would examine whether there were any procedural irregularities in the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to constitute an "inquiry committee" to take up the impeachment proceedings against Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma.

The apex court said it would consider whether under Article 124(4) (impeachment) and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, it was essential that such an inquiry committee be jointly constituted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha when two separate motions for a judge’s removal are moved in both Houses simultaneously and admitted.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma heard at length the interpretation of Article 124(4) and the Judges Inquiry Act sought to be advanced by senior advocate and former attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi on behalf of Justice Varma. As the arguments were inconclusive, the bench said it would continue hearing on Thursday.

Rohatgi submitted that under the procedure prescribed for the removal of a Supreme Court or high court judge, Parliament has to follow the 1968 Judges Inquiry Act, according to which a motion has to be moved by either 50 members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 members of the Lok Sabha. It can be in the form of a jointly signed letter by the MPs, he said.

In the present case, Rohatgi said a peculiarity had arisen as members from both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha had moved the motion for Varma’s impeachment on July 21 and notices were issued by the presiding officers of the two Houses on the same day. According to Rohatgi, unless the motion is admitted in both Houses, the inquiry committee can't be formed when two motions are simultaneously pending in Parliament.