Judicial Drama: High Stakes Inquiry into Justice Varma's Corruption Allegations

Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma challenges the validity of a parliamentary inquiry committee set up to investigate corruption charges against him. Represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Justice Varma's defense disputes the procedure as unconstitutional under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. The Supreme Court is hearing the case.

Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has raised objections in the Supreme Court against the establishment of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker, probing allegations of corruption against him. The crux of the issue lies in whether such a committee can be constituted unilaterally when motions for impeachment were initiated in both Houses of Parliament on the same day, but recognized in only one.

Justice Varma, underscored by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, contends that the formation of the committee contravenes stipulated procedures in the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968. The Act mandates a bicameral motion process, necessitating approval from both parliamentary houses before advancing. The validity of the unilateral actions of the Lok Sabha Speaker after the Rajya Sabha's dismissal of the motion is at the heart of the legal debate.

Amidst ongoing hearings, Justice Varma, transferred to Allahabad after accusations emerged from New Delhi, challenges the constitutionality of the inquiry process. The Supreme Court evaluates whether the procedural flaws invalidated the actions of the Lok Sabha, with the potential for significant implications on judicial accountability and parliamentary motions.

(With inputs from agencies.)