New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 7) observed orally that there is “some infirmity” in the Lok Sabha Speaker’s constitution of the inquiry committee which has a mandate to probe the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma added that it will consider the fact that if the infirmity is so grave that it warrants the termination of the proceedings, reported LiveLaw.“There is some infirmity but would it go to such an extent that this entire committee has to be quashed…that you argue,” said Justice Dipankar Dutta while hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Varma challenging the legality of the committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for inquiry against him over the discovery of unaccounted cash currencies at his official residence.The petition argues that despite impeachment notices being moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla constituted the committee on his own, without waiting for the Rajya Sabha chairman’s decision on admission of the motion or holding the mandatory joint consultation prescribed by law. The petition argues that this procedure is contrary to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.Appearing for Justice Varma, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that if motions are moved simultaneously in both the Houses, then a committee can be formed only jointly by the Lok Sabha speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman.Rohatgi added that the motion in the Rajya Sabha was rejected by the deputy chairman only on August 11 but the committee was formed on August 12 by the Lok Sabha speaker. He added that after one house rejected the motion, the Lok Sabha speaker could not have constituted the committee.The bench examined whether the then Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had admitted the motion on the first day itself when it was received.As per existing rules, if there was an admission of the motion by the Rajya Sabha chairman, then the deputy chairman (who assumed the position of Chairman after Dhankhar’s resignation) could not have later rejected the motion. In case there was an admission by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, then the Lok Sabha speaker could not have unilaterally constituted the committee as in that scenario it would have to be jointly done by the LS Speaker and the RS Chairman, reported LiveLaw.Justice Verma was a Delhi high court judge when controversy erupted over the discovery of a large amount of cash from a room damaged by fire at his official residence.