The Union government on Friday said that the motion to impeach justice Yashwant Varma will be brought in the Lok Sabha, ending the ambiguity about the high-profile process created after two separate notices were moved in both Houses of Parliament earlier this week. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla chairs a meeting of the leaders of all parties to discuss the functioning of the House, in New Delhi on Friday. (ANI)

People aware of the matter said that the notice in the Rajya Sabha, signed by 63 members and mentioned by former vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar, was only submitted and not admitted. They also said that there were procedural lapses in the notice submitted in the Upper House and that the report of the inquiry committee set up by the apex court was shared only with the Lok Sabha, not the Rajya Sabha.

HT has reported that the former vice-president’s move to kickstart the impeachment process of justice Varma in the Rajya Sabha took the government, which wanted the process to go through the Lok Sabha, by surprise, and it was the trigger that prompted the abrupt resignation on Monday night.

“…There shouldn’t be any doubt that the discussion and motion proceedings to remove justice Yashwant Varma will begin in the Lok Sabha,” said Union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju.

He said the parties have agreed that the motion will be moved in the Lok Sabha and concurred in the Rajya Sabha, as per the rules.

Rijiju also said that a special discussion on Operation Sindoor will begin in the Lok Sabha on Monday, for which 16 hours was allocated, and that the Rajya Sabha will take up the discussion a day later for the same duration.

A notice for the impeachment of justice Varma, who is facing charges of corruption, signed by 152 lawmakers was submitted to Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla on Monday. But the same day, then chairman of the Rajya Sabha Dhankhar told the Upper House that another notice for the impeachment of the judge with the signatures of 63 Opposition members was submitted.

Dhankhar went on to add that if the motion is presented in both Houses on the same day, the provisions for appointing the probe committee vary and the committee shall be constituted jointly by the speaker and the chairman.

That evening, Dhankhar suddenly resigned from his position, citing health reasons. The formation of the committee was then put on hold.

As per the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker of the Lok Sabha or the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal has been sought.

The committee will comprise the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the high courts, and a distinguished jurist.

As per the procedure, the Speaker has to write to the CJI seeking suggestions for the names of the judges to be included in the panel.

A senior government functionary said the decks have now been cleared for the formation of the committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker.

“The motion was not admitted in the Rajya Sabha. The chairman’s statement itself makes it clear…he had directed the secretary-general to take steps in the direction. The secretariat has found that the notice submitted in Rajya Sabha is not in order,” said the functionary, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The functionary also added that the President had forwarded the SC report to the Lok Sabha and not the Rajya Sabha.

A senior government functionary said the decks have now been cleared for the formation of the committee in the Lok Sabha.

“The motion was not admitted in the Rajya Sabha. The chairman’s statement itself makes it clear…he had directed the secretary-general to take up the issue. The secretariat has found that the notice submitted in Rajya Sabha is not in order,” said the functionary, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The functionary also added that the President’s report was sent to the Lok Sabha and not the Rajya Sabha.

Based on a three-member committee’s report, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna in May recommended to the President and the Prime Minister to initiate proceedings to remove justice Varma from office.

Rijiju declined to comment on Dhankhar’s statement but said the government was making efforts to build a consensus between political parties to support the motion for impeachment as the issue of corruption in the judiciary should be taken up not just by the government but the entire political class.

To a question on whether there will be consultation between the Lok Sabha speaker and the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, Harivansh, on the formation of the committee, Rijiju said, “All parties have agreed that the removal has to be a joint call… once we have agreed (to the impeachment) in the Lok Sabha, it will be concurred in the Rajya Sabha..The announcement about the formation of the committee should come from the chair.”

He did not rule out the possibility of a discussion between the speaker and the deputy chairman and said, “..That will be our internal issue.”

The people cited above said the notice submitted in the Rajya Sabha was not admitted as it was found to have “procedural lapses”.

“While he (Dhankhar) mentioned the Supreme Court’s report on justice Varma and the recommendation made by the President, there were no relevant documents attached in the annexure because correspondence related to these was not shared with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat or the vice-president’s office,” said the functionary quoted above.

The entire process of impeachment must be completed in the monsoon session that ends on August 21. Justice Varma will get up to three opportunities to defend himself before Parliament.

Parliament proceedings have been disrupted this week with the Opposition demanding a discussion on the special intensive revision in Bihar and a statement from Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Operation Sindoor.

Rijiju said a consensus was reached between the ruling coalition and the Opposition on taking up a special discussion on Operation Sindoor in the Lok Sabha on Monday and in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday. The discussion will not be under any rule, which means there is no need for voting at the end.

The controversy began after wads of charred cash were allegedly found at the residence of justice Varma, then a Delhi high court judge, on March 14 following a fire.

On March 22, the top court formed an inquiry committee, comprising then high court chief justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana), GS Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh), and justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka high court).

The 64-page inquiry report cited “strong inferential evidence” to conclude that justice Varma had “covert or active control” over the charred cash. While admitting that no direct evidence linked him to the currency, the panel held that his conduct “belied the trust” reposed in a constitutional judge and warranted impeachment proceedings. The committee concluded that even if the money had been stored without his explicit knowledge, its presence in his official residence “eroded public trust” and constituted judicial misconduct of a grave nature.

The findings of the report were submitted to then CJI Khanna on May 3. Five days later, he wrote to the PM and President.