Bipartisan Motion for Removal of Justice Yashwant Varma
Motion for Removal of Justice Yashwant Varma
-
Judge Involved: Justice Yashwant Varma (currently with the Allahabad High Court; earlier Delhi High Court).
-
Controversy:
-
Half-burnt currency notes were found at his official residence in Delhi after a fire incident on March 14.
-
He was later transferred to Allahabad High Court.
-
A Supreme Court committee inquiry was conducted.
-
Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister, enabling parliamentary action.
Type: Bipartisan Motion — signed by 152 MPs (ruling + opposition).
Initiated in: Lok Sabha.
Motion for Removal
-
Basis: Article 124(4) read with Article 217 of the Constitution and Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
initiated in either the Lok Sabha (with at least 100 members' signatures) or the Rajya Sabha (with at least 50 members' signatures).
-
The Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha) decides whether to admit the motion.
Three-Member Inquiry Committee Composition (as per Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968):
-
Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge.
-
Chief Justice of a High Court.
-
A distinguished jurist.
Rajya Sabha Motion
- Moved on July 21 by 63 Opposition MPs.
- Verified that it met the requirement of minimum 50 signatures (as per Act).
- Directed the Secretary-General to verify if a motion was also filed in Lok Sabha
Parliamentary & Political Consensus
-
All political parties agreed unanimously to pursue removal jointly.
-
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Rijiju emphasized bipartisan nature of the move.
-
Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh involved in cross-party consultations.
Legal & Constitutional Backing
-
Article 217 read with Article 124(4): Governs the removal of High Court judges.
-
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Lays out the inquiry and motion process.
-
Requirement: Signed motion by minimum 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
Significance
-
Reflects rare bipartisan unity in matters of judicial accountability.
-
First major instance in recent years of invoking the judicial impeachment mechanism.
-
Highlights growing concern over judicial probity and accountability.