Government to initiate removal motion against Justice Yashwant Varma
The Government is set to begin the process of collecting signatures for a motion seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, with several major political parties having expressed their willingness, in principle, to support the initiative.
Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) said that while the process of obtaining signatures would commence shortly, a decision was yet to be taken on whether the motion would be introduced in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. A minimum of 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) is required for the Lok Sabha, and at least 50 MPs for the Rajya Sabha, for such a motion to be admitted.
The Monsoon Session of Parliament will begin on July 21 and conclude on August 21, following a last-minute extension of 10 days. President Droupadi Murmu gave assent to the revised schedule earlier in the day. 'The Government has enough business to conduct,' Mr. Rijiju said, without elaborating on the reasons for extending the session beyond the earlier end date of August 12.
Even if the motion is introduced during the upcoming session, it is unlikely to reach a conclusion within the same period. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, once a motion for the removal of a judge is admitted in either House, the presiding officer is required to constitute a three-member committee to investigate the allegations forming the basis of the motion.
This committee is composed of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. The committee must submit its report within three months, though an extension may be granted.
Responding to speculation regarding the findings of a fact-finding panel led by the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Mr. Rijiju clarified that such a report alone could not suffice to proceed with a removal motion in Parliament. He noted that the panel had not indicted Justice Varma, but had recommended the appropriate next steps, as the constitutional authority to remove a judge rests solely with Parliament.
The case concerns a fire incident at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi in March, during his tenure as a judge of the Delhi High Court. The incident led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of currency notes in the outhouse. Justice Varma reportedly denied knowledge of the cash.
A Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry committee, however, reportedly found material to recommend removal after recording statements from several witnesses, including the judge. Justice Khanna subsequently wrote to the President and the Prime Minister, recommending Justice Varma's removal—thereby initiating the constitutional procedure for removal of a member of the higher judiciary.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Gujarat HC grants Asaram Bapu his ‘final' bail extension
The Gujarat High Court extended convicted self-styled godman Asaram Bapu's temporary medical bail by one month on Thursday while explicitly stating this would be the final extension. The 86-year-old is currently serving a life term for raping a woman disciple from Surat at his Ahmedabad ashram between 2001-2006. The Division Bench of Justices Ilesh Vora and PM Raval rejected Asaram's lawyer's request for a three-month extension, granting only 30 additional days. This follows the court's previous interim extension from June 30 to July 7. Asaram had originally been granted three months' bail in March. The controversial spiritual leader was convicted in January 2023 under multiple IPC sections including 376(2)(C) for rape, 377 for unnatural offenses, and 354 for assault with intent to outrage modesty. He is simultaneously serving a separate life sentence for the 2013 rape of a minor at his Rajasthan ashram. The current bail extension stems from the Supreme Court's March directive permitting temporary medical release, with instructions to seek any further extensions from the Gujarat High Court.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Delayed appointments challenge judiciary's independence: SC ex-judge
Porvorim: Lawyers recommended for judgeship have to wait for around a year for govt to approve their appointment. This is an example of the independence of the judiciary still being challenged today, a retired judge of the Supreme Court , Justice Abhay S Oka, said on Thursday. He said that former Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, made the entire system transparent by putting in the public domain every single document on how the collegium functions. All documents at every stage, right from the recommendation from the collegium of the high courts, the state, and authorities, to any objection raised by the chief minister, the governor, or the intelligence bureau, as well as the response of Govt of India, are all public, Oka said. 'All this comes before the Supreme Court collegium, but today we have scenarios where, after the Supreme Court collegium approves the recommendation and it is put out on the website, it takes nine months and even more than a year for govt to approve the names of judges,' Oka said. The retired justice said, 'Once the Supreme Court collegium resolution is on the website, imagine the mindset of that person. He cannot get work as he feels he's going to become a judge, but he must wait nine months or even a year or more. Does this not affect the independence of the judiciary?' Oka said, 'Therefore, the scenario today is that of chief justices saying they find it difficult to persuade bright lawyers to accept judgeship because of the practical difficulties they face due to the uncertainty.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo He was delivering the first lecture under the annual lecture series in memory of the late Justice H R Khanna of the Supreme Court, organised by the Goa High Court Bar Association. Oka said it is up to the legal fraternity to ensure that the independence of the judiciary remains intact, and unless the judiciary is independent, fundamental rights and democracy will not survive. While the right to hold protests was curbed during the Emergency, the tendency continues even today, Oka said. 'I came across a case as the Chief Justice of the Karnataka high court in 2020 or 2021 where Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was invoked when somebody wanted to protest against the CAA,' Oka said. 'In those days, rulers relied upon Emergency powers, but the tendency continues and I had to set aside the order that prohibited an agitation against the CAA.' Once a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, he or she should never think about future prospects, he said, and not think about the consequences of a judgment they are going to deliver. Bold and fearless judges like the late Justice Khanna, who was fiercely independent, may not get high posts but will get great satisfaction in abiding by the oath, Oka said. Judges like Khanna and other fearless judges who sacrificed a lot but did not reach the pinnacle or the Supreme Court will nevertheless be remembered forever, he said. On the other hand, he said, there are judges who have reached high positions but have already been forgotten.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC seeks clarity on school mergers, warns govt lawyers of fine
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has sought clarification from the Uttar Pradesh govt on whether a survey was conducted before deciding to merge primary schools in the state. The court has asked the govt to present the survey report, if any, and provide a well-prepared response to the petition challenging the merger. The court adjourned the hearing till Friday, warning the state's top lawyers that if they fail to present the govt's stand with full preparation and facts, a Rs 1 lakh fine may be imposed. The court made it clear that there will be no further postponement on Friday. A single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order on a writ petition filed by Krishna Kumari of Sitapur and 50 others. The petition was presented for hearing on Wednesday, but the govt lawyers had sought time till Thursday for arguments. Earlier, the petitioners' counsel L P Mishra and Gaurav Mehrotra argued that the state govt's decision of June 16 was "arbitrary" and "illegal". It was said that to ensure the right to education provided under Article 21A of the Constitution, the central govt passed the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act in 2009, under which education was made compulsory for children between 6 and 14 years. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo To ensure this constitutional right, the govt established a large number of primary schools in the state under the provisions of the Right to Education Act. It was said that as per the intention of the Act, schools were established for every 300 population within a radius of one km to provide the constitutional right to education and now the govt is closing down a large number of schools by merging them through an administrative order. It was argued that this act was against the provisions of Article 21A of the Constitution and the RTE Act . It was also argued that once schools have been established on a large-scale to fulfil the goal of the constitutional right under the Right to Education Act, the work done under the said Act cannot be reversed by a mere administrative order because it cannot supersede any legislative provision. Newly-appointed additional advocate general Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel SK Singh appeared for the state govt, while Sandeep Dixit appeared as the advocate of BSA Sitapur. The govt counsel justified the merger decision, citing low student enrollment in many schools, with around 56 schools having no students at all. However, the court questioned whether a survey had been conducted to arrive at this decision and asked to see the survey report if one had been done. When the report could not be presented and the govt counsel started presenting its case with half-hearted preparations, the court got irked and started reprimanding the govt lawyers.
