Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation.
Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge.
But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted.
According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office."
A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient.
A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office.
Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office.
Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row.
Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case.
Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said.
A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament.
In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it.
According to the Judges Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal has been sought.
The committee consists of the chief justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist".
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report.
"So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said.
The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided.
"As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said.
Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard.
He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion.
Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12.
A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse.
Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement.
The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work.
Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned.
Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
List steps you plan against betting apps, SC asks government
. NEW DELHI: Expressing serious concern over the deleterious impact of addictive betting applications on youth, the Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to respond in two weeks what steps it is contemplating to save youngsters from getting financially ruined, often forcing them to commit suicide. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the counsel for Centre to specify in its affidavit "what remedial measures it is contemplating after applying mind to the gravity of the issue". The counsel said another bench is examining whether these apps are akin to gambling, requiring them to be banned, and the decision in that case would have a direct bearing on reliefs sought in a PIL filed by K A Paul. But the bench said, "You (the Centre) do not appear to take the problem seriously". The judges also issued notices to some states, RBI, ED, TRAI, Google India, Apple India, Dream11 and other gaming companies to file responses in two weeks. The petitioner had sought a complete ban on illegal betting apps and strict regulation of online gaming and fantasy sports, alleging these are being popularised by film stars, famous cricketers and other celebrities and end up drawing youth to the apps like moths to a flame. He said the more than 150-year-old Public Gambling Act, 1867, is unable to deal with the menace. Over 24 incidents of suicide have been reported from Telangana alone in the last one and a half years and are directly linked to debt traps created by gambling/betting platforms.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
2008 Malegaon case: Congress attempted to fabricate 'saffron terror' narrative to humiliate Hindus and for vote-bank politics, says BJP
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Friday (August 1, 2025) cited the statement of a former Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) officer, who was involved in the investigation into the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast, to allege that the then Congress government had attempted to 'fabricate a narrative of Saffron terror to humiliate Hindus and for vote-bank politics'. In a statement to the media, former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar has claim that pressure was exerted on him to arrest Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat. VIDEO | Was asked to apprehend Mohan Bhagwat in Malegaon blast case, claims ex-ATS official. Former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar says, "I did not investigate the Malegaon bomb blast case for which the verdict came yesterday. But I was involved in probing some absconding accused in… — Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) August 1, 2025 At a press conference, BJP spokesperson and MP Sambit Patra referred to Mr. Mujawar's remarks to accuse the Congress party of doing 'vindictive politics', stating that 'the Gandhi family was intent on defaming Sanatan'. He said the recent statement by senior Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan — that 'terrorism has no religion' — was a 'well-worn phrase of Congress's appeasement politics'. Stating that Mr. Mujawar had made an important disclosure, the BJP leader said: 'He revealed that top ATS officers and some influential figures in the then government pressured him to push forward the 'saffron terror' narrative at all costs and to arrest RSS Sarsanghchalak Shri Mohan Bhagwat under that conspiracy, even though his name was nowhere in the chargesheet or the investigation....' 'But Mehboob stated that he would not act outside the framework of the Constitution or damage the country's democratic fabric. After this refusal, his own senior officers framed him with false and serious charges. Some allegations were imposed on him, resulting in his promotion being blocked. Later, Mujawar approached the court, where he was completely exonerated. The court also ruled that all allegations against him were baseless and malicious,' said Mr. Patra. 'The Congress government at the time had reached new heights of vindictive mentality. Individuals associated with the BJP, followers of Hinduism, and senior functionaries of the RSS were deliberately humiliated, arrested, and targeted for personal revenge. The Congress was operating in a completely retaliatory mode, and all of this was happening at the behest of the Gandhi family,' he alleged. He said former Union Minister Sushilkumar Shinde was the first to use the term 'saffron terror' during a Congress party convention. 'When asked why he said so and whether it was appropriate, he smiled and said: 'I now feel what I said was wrong, but I only did what my party high command told me'...who is the Congress high command? In the Congress party, the high command is not an institution — it is just one family, the Gandhi family. There is only one command, but many faces behind it — Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra,' he said. On Thursday, in the Malegaon case, a Mumbai NIA court acquitted all seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit.
