Admitted or submitted? Crucial technicality over Justice Varma motion in spotlight after Dhankar's exit
Rajya Sabha
Chairman
Jagdeep Dhankhar
's abrupt resignation on Monday has stirred a constitutional and political storm, particularly over his handling of a motion seeking the removal of
Allahabad High Court
judge Yashwant Varma.
At the centre of the controversy is a crucial legal distinction: was the notice filed by 63
Opposition MPs
merely
submitted
, or was it
admitted
by Dhankhar? That difference isn't just semantic—it could determine who gets to pick the three-member panel that will examine the charges against Justice Varma.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Please select course:
Select a Course Category
others
Management
Leadership
Digital Marketing
Public Policy
PGDM
Healthcare
Design Thinking
Operations Management
Finance
Artificial Intelligence
Cybersecurity
Product Management
Technology
MCA
Data Science
MBA
Project Management
Data Analytics
healthcare
CXO
Data Science
Others
Degree
Skills you'll gain:
Duration:
16 Weeks
Indian School of Business
CERT - ISB Cybersecurity for Leaders Program India
Starts on
undefined
Get Details
Skills you'll gain:
Duration:
16 Weeks
Indian School of Business
CERT - ISB Cybersecurity for Leaders Program India
Starts on
undefined
Get Details
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Mountain Gear for Extreme Conditions
Trek Kit India
Learn More
A move that upset the govt
According to TOI sources, Dhankhar earned the ire of the ruling establishment by taking cognisance of the Opposition's Rajya Sabha notice for initiating proceedings against Justice Varma.
This, despite the government having already signalled its preference to initiate the process in the Lok Sabha, backed by signatures from 145 MPs across party lines. That notice had been submitted earlier on Monday to Speaker Om Birla.
Live Events
While Dhankhar's move may have been procedurally valid—the Rajya Sabha notice had the required minimum of 50 signatories—it was seen by the government as undermining its broader strategy to build an all-party consensus on the judge's removal.
Notably, the Rajya Sabha motion was signed only by Opposition MPs.
The Legal Tangle: Submission vs Admission
In a statement made in the Upper House on Monday afternoon, Dhankhar referred to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, noting that when such notices are received in both Houses on the same day, no inquiry committee can be formed unless the motion is
admitted
by both.
If admitted in both Houses, the Speaker and the Chairman are to jointly form the committee.
Crucially, however, he stopped short of stating that he had formally admitted the motion, instead noting that it met the numerical requirement. He also argued that the Speaker or Chairman has no discretion to reject or admit such a motion if presented simultaneously in both Houses—a claim that legal experts say is not explicitly supported by the 1968 Act.
He directed the Rajya Sabha Secretary General to initiate further steps, a move that suggested at least partial procedural endorsement.
Who will decide now?
With Dhankhar's resignation accepted by President Droupadi Murmu, Deputy Chairman Harivansh has taken over as officiating Rajya Sabha Chairman.
His next steps will be closely watched.
'There's no guarantee he will back Dhankhar's reading of the situation,' a senior official told TOI. "In any case, he has no special interest in matters concerning judiciary and is unlikely to diverge drastically from the speaker in the choice of the members of the inquiry panel," the source further said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals
The US tariff saga has gone through many twists and turns. And many more are likely left. The ratcheting up of tariffs last month is broader and higher than expected. In late May, the view was that while the extant US average tariff rate was around 13-14 per cent, it was headed towards 18-20 per cent. Much of the increase was expected to be focused on ASEAN, where the tariff rate would be raised to that of China's to eliminate transshipment of Chinese exports to the US via the region. While those on Vietnam and Indonesia were in line with expectations, the additional tariffs on Brazil, Canada, and Mexico were not. Nor was the higher 50 per cent rate on copper. However, negotiations are ongoing, including with India, the EU, and Korea. If this week's Japan deal is any guide, tariffs on these economies will likely be half of the threatened levels. But, even at the reduced rate, if these, along with those on EU and the likely extensions of global sectoral tariffs to semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, are realised, then the effective tariff rate could well exceed 20 per cent. All eyes are therefore on August 1, which is the new deadline set by the administration for countries to finalise trade deals. But there is an upcoming and surprisingly overlooked event that could easily make these trade deals moot and plunge the tariff discussions into more uncertainty. On May 28, the US Court of International Trade (USCIT) ruled that tariffs imposed using the provisions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) overstepped the authority granted by the Act. The ruling did not consider the current conditions in the US to be a 'state of emergency,' which is needed to invoke IEEPA, to be convincing nor the use of tariffs to address it. Tariffs could be imposed, if the government so desired, but via the other options at its disposal. Not IEEPA. A federal appeals court granted the government a stay on the order and is slated to begin hearing arguments on the appeal on July 31. All the universal, reciprocal, and fentanyl-related tariffs are based on IEEPA. The tariffs unaffected are the Section 301 tariffs on China imposed under Trump 1.0 and extended by the Biden administration, and the global sectoral tariffs on aluminum, autos and auto parts, copper, and steel that were imposed under Section 232. It is unclear how the appeals court will rule. But regardless of the decision, either party is likely to move the case to the Supreme Court. If the tariffs under IEEPA are eventually disallowed by the US Supreme Court, the government will shift to other options. Tariffs are central to this administration's economic agenda and will thus be pursued. Unlike those under IEEPA, the tariffs under the other options are more cumbersome, limited in scope, and significantly more resource intensive. But they can be implemented in a compressed time frame if the administration so desires. A potential sequence of such actions could be the following. Use Section 122 to impose tariffs of 15 per cent for 150 days on all countries (justified to address balance of payments needs or to prevent a significant depreciation of the dollar). At the same time, ratchet up the tariffs on China that were imposed under Section 301 in Trade War 1.0 by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Keep tariffs on steel and aluminum at 50 per cent (as on copper) and raise that on autos from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. Hasten the ongoing Section 232 (sector specific on grounds on national economic security) investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and lumber to bring these under the tariff net of 25 per cent – 50 per cent. Use Section 338 to impose tariffs on countries that are deemed to discriminate specifically against US commercial interests (such as digital services taxes by Australia, the EU, Canada, India, and others, although the taxes are imposed on other countries too). Complete Section 301 investigations on large trading partners (some are ongoing, for example, on the EU and Brazil). These investigations are resource intensive as they need to first identify the specific policy of a trading partner that is the basis of 'unfair competition 'and then quantify the 'harm' that such policies impose on US consumers for each product and for each country. The tariff rate needs to be commensurate with the harm caused and, thus, differ, from product to product for each country. Finally, roll all tariffs under Sections 301 and 232. As one can imagine, this is an arduous and uncertain process. However, the direction of travel is more certain — the average effective tariff rate is likely to settle close to 20 per cent. Needless to say, the country- and product-specific impact of Sections 301 and 232 tariffs could be vastly different than under IEEPA. Markets so far have largely shrugged off the announced new tariffs. This is understandable given the quick deescalation after the strong market and corporate reaction to the Liberation Day tariffs; the possibility that the August 1 deadline is postponed; and the eventual negotiated tariff rates could be different from those announced. However, a court ruling on IEEPA could well turn both the August 1 deadline and the trade deals moot, including potentially that with India. If the basis of these deals, that is, IEEPA, is no longer admissible, then we are headed for renegotiations with tariffs under sections 301 and 232. These could be starkly different than those that are being negotiated now. The uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals. US courts might well upset the best laid plans of mice and men. Continued uncertainty is the only certainty. The writer is Chief Emerging Markets Economist, J P Morgan. Views are personal
News18
36 minutes ago
- News18
Parliament Gears Up For Intense Debate On Operation Sindoor And Pahlgaam Terror Attack
Parliament Gears Up For Intense Debate On Operation Sindoor And Pahlgaam Terror Attack | News18 Last Updated: India Videos | A high-stakes political showdown is brewing in Parliament as the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha together prepare for a 16-16-hour debate on Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam terror attack n18oc_indiaNews18 Mobile App -
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Lok Sabha to hold special discussion on 'Operation Sindoor' today
Lok Sabha is set to hold a special discussion on 'Operation Sindoor', India's military response to the Pahalgam terror attack on Monday. A fiery debate on the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor is expected to unfold in Parliament, between top leaders from the ruling alliance and the Opposition. Lok Sabha List of Business for Monday states, "Special Discussion on India's strong, successful and decisive 'Operation Sindoor' in response to terrorist attack in Pahalgam". Twenty-six civilians were killed in the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, after which India retaliated through precision strikes under Operation Sindoor, targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). Meanwhile, the first week of the Monsoon session of Parliament witnessed major disruptions with the surprise resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar as Vice President. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is likely to initiate the discussion on Operation Sindhoor in the Lok Sabha on Monday. Sources said that Home Minister Amit Shah, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and BJP MPs Anurag Thakur and Nishikant Dubey are also expected to take part in the discussion in Lok Sabha. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to intervene in the discussion in the Lok Sabha. He may also intervene in the discussion in the Rajya Sabha. Sources said discussion on Operation Sindoor will begin in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday. Rajnath Singh and S Jaishankar will be among ministers who will take part in the discussion in the Rajya Sabha, sources said. TDP's Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu and GM Harish Balayogi are expected to participate in the discussion on Op Sindoor in the Lok Sabha. The sources said the party has been allotted 30 minutes. From the Samajwadi Party, its chief Akhilesh Yadav, and MP Rajiv Rai will participate in the debate. Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju stated that the debate on Operation Sindoor will be held for 16 hours in the Lok Sabha on July 28 and for 16 hours in the Rajya Sabha on July 29. "All issues cannot be discussed together... The opposition has raised several issues, like the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar and others. We have told them that Operation Sindoor will be discussed first. We will decide which issues to discuss after that. Operation Sindoor will be debated for 16 hours in the Lok Sabha on Monday (July 28) and for 16 hours in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday (July 29)," Rijiju told reporters. Opposition parties have been demanding a discussion on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor and have sought the government's clarification over US President Donald Trump's repeated claims that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. The Opposition parties had been demanding PM Modi's presence during the debate. Since PM Modi travelled abroad on a two-nation visit this week, the discussion has been scheduled for next week. Apart from this, the floor leaders of the INDIA bloc parties will meet on Monday at 10 am to discuss the strategy for the second week of the monsoon session, with the Lok Sabha slated to take up discussion on Operation Sindoor on Monday and the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
