Hon’ble members, I need to inform you that I have received notice of motion under Article 217, 1B, read with Article 218 and Article 124, Sub Article 4 of the Constitution of India, along with Section 3.1.b of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to constitute a statutory committee for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, at Allahabad. This has been received by me today. It is signed by more than 50 members of the Council of States, and thus it meets the numerical requirement of signing by Members of Parliament for setting in motion a process for removal of a High Court Judge.
I direct the Secretary General to find out whether a similar motion has been moved in the House of People, the Lok Sabha, and this is being done for the purpose that under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 the procedure is different, if a motion is presented in one house or if the motion is presented on the same day in both the houses. If the motion is presented in the two houses on different dates, then the motion which is presented in the house first that alone is taken into consideration and the second motion gets non-jurisdictional.
But if the motion is presented in both the Houses on the same day, then the provisions are different. If the motion is presented only in one House, then the Presiding Officer of that House has the competence to consider the motion and either admit or reject it. But if a motion is presented on the same day in both the Houses, then the provisions are different.
Then the right of the Speaker or the Chairman to admit or reject the motion is not there. Then the motions become property of the House. I would invite your attention in that behalf to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
If the motion referred to in Subsection 1 is admitted, the Speaker, or as the case may be, Chairman, shall keep the motion pending and constitute as soon as may be for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a judge is prayed for, a committee consisting of three members of whom one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices and other judges of the Supreme Court, one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts, and one shall be a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker or, as the case may be, Chairman a Distinguished Jurist. And before that, it is given that if a notice given of a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for removal of a judge signed by, in the case of a notice given in the House of People, by no less than 100 members of the House, and in the case of a notice given in the Council of States by no less than 50 members of the Council, then the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman may, after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit, and after considering such material or materials, if any, as may be available to him, either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same.
But coming to a motion that has been presented in both the Houses on the same day, it says, provided that where notice of a motion referred to in subsection 1 are given on the same day in both the Houses of Parliament, then no committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both the Houses, and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman.
So, since the provisions are different, I have directed the Secretary-General to update whether such a motion has also been moved in the House of the People. …..since the Hon’ble Law Minister is present here and has so indicated that a similar motion has come to be presented by the requisite number of Members of Parliament of Lok Sabha—more than 100……….the provisions of rule, provisions of section 3, subsection 2, proviso will come into effect and the Secretary-General will take necessary steps in this direction.