'Did you take chance…?': SC to Justice Yashwant Varma on his plea against probe into cash at his home
The committee found him guilty of misconduct over the unaccounted-for cash found at his Delhi residence in March.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that there is a process to be followed under Article 124 of the Constitution, and that a judge can't be a subject of public debate, PTI reported.
At this point, the bench asked, "Why did you (Justice Varma) appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?"
Justice Varma's plea challenges the probe report and the committee's very remit. It also seeks quashing of the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
For now posted at the Allahabad high court, Justice Varma is staring at action via Parliament.
Also read | Lok Sabha will initiate proceedings to remove Justice Yashwant Varma: Kiren Rijiju
When cash was allegedly found by firefighters in a blaze at his residence on March 14, he was a judge of the Delhi HC. He was not present there, and has strongly denied any involvement, asserting that neither he nor his family members placed the cash in the storeroom.
He has also alleged that the probe committee proceeded in a pre-determined fashion and merely drew inferences. He wants that the recommendation by the CJI — asking the President and Prime Minister to start his removal process — be declared unconstitutional, ANI reported.
Also read | BJP orchestrated VP Jagdeep Dhankhar's exit over Justice Varma: Cong
He has further argued that the in-house procedure extended beyond its role of self-regulation and fact-finding: 'By culminating in recommendations for removal from constitutional office, it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism."
The committee constituted on March 22 was comprised of Justices Sheel Nagu (then CJ of Punjab and Haryana high court), GS Sandhawalia (then CJ of Himachal Pradesh HC), and Anu Sivaraman (judge of Karnataka HC.
(with agency inputs)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Are Rohingya illegal migrants or refugees? Supreme Court to decide
The Supreme Court on Thursday began examining whether Rohingya entrants staying in the country are refugees or illegal migrants, as it heard a batch of petitions filed on their behalf challenging their deportation and seeking remedial steps to give them basic amenities during their stay in refugee camps. Advocate Kanu Agarwal appearing for Centre submitted a list of cases pertaining to Rohingyas and urged the court to decide this batch of cases first.(File/ANI) A bench headed by justice Surya Kant said, 'The first major issue is whether they are refugees or illegal migrants. The rest is consequential.' 'If they are refugees, they are entitled to certain protections under law. If not, they are illegal migrants and should be deported back to their country,' said the bench, also comprising justices Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh. The court took up a batch of 22 cases involving the deportation of foreigners who are either in detention camps or are claiming refugee status. The bench directed that the cases related to Rohingya migrants be segregated into a single batch. It directed that cases concerning other foreigners be clubbed into a separate batch to be taken up separately. The four questions the court framed in the Rohingya batch of cases included, 'whether Rohingya entrants are entitled to be declared as refugees and if so, what protection emanates from the rights they are entitled to; whether Rohingyas are illegal entrants and if government of India and states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law.' There were two consequential issues also that were framed by the court: 'Even if Rohingya entrants are held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions.' Lastly, it said, 'Whether Rohingya entrants who are not detained but living in refugee camps have been provided with basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation, education, etc.' As the batch of cases got listed together, the bench expressed a practical difficulty in proceeding with the hearing of the matter as some petitions talked of deportation of foreigners in general, while others specifically related to the condition of foreigners in detention camps. Advocate Kanu Agarwal appearing for Centre submitted a list of cases pertaining to Rohingyas and urged the court to decide this batch of cases first. The non-Rohingya matters, he added, seek interpretation of the Foreigners Act. The bench said, 'The issues that arise in the other batch of cases will be determined separately on another date.' Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing in multiple petitions said that the genesis of these cases began with cases filed by Rohingyas in 2013. He said 15 out of the batch of 22 cases pertained to Rohingya refugees and the need for providing them facilities in their camps at par with refugees recognised under the UN Convention on Refugees. India is not a signatory to this convention and has not considered grant of refugee status for them. Senior advocates Ashwani Kumar and Colin Gonsalves, appearing in other matters, pointed out that Rohingyas who hail from Myanmar have fled to India seeking asylum as they are being persecuted in their country. Gonsalves further referred to a case filed by the wife of a foreigner facing detention in Assam which concern Rohingya and non-Rohingya foreigners. In that case, Gonsalves showed orders passed by the court to expedite the deportation process despite the fact that Myanmar is unwilling to take these persons back. In May this year, while hearing an application filed by Delhi-based Rohingya migrants, the top court had refused to adopt a piecemeal approach in deciding individual cases and called for all cases pending on the issue to be listed together. The Centre has been opposing the maintainability of these petitions citing an order of the top court of April 2021 passed in a petition seeking protection for Rohingya refugees. This order permits the Centre to take deportation measures as required under law. This order held that while the right to life and liberty is available to even non-citizens, the right not to be deported is ancillary but concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of India, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) only to citizens.
The Hindu
23 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court dismisses anticipatory bail of IPS officer Sanjay, asks him to surrender in three weeks
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to N. Sanjay, former Director General (DG) of the A.P. State Disaster Response & Fire Services, and Additional DG of the Crime Investigation Department (CID), in the case registered against him by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). He was accused of manipulating tender processes for awarding contract work of developing and maintaining the AGNI - NOC (Governance & NOC Integration) web portal and mobile app, and supplying hardware to a private company in violation of the procedures in 2023. Mr. Sanjay was also accused of not properly monitoring the progress of AGNI-NOC portal, leading to delays and incomplete work, which caused significant damage to the project. Besides, he was charged with procuring some equipment without calling tenders. The High Court had granted conditional anticipatory bail to Mr. Sanjay in January 2025 by noting that, being an IPS officer who worked as the DG of AP State Disaster Response & Fire Services, and Additional DG of CID, the question of his fleeing was remote, there was absolutely no flight risk as he got a fixed abode, and his health condition required continuous monitoring for recovery. On July 31, a Division Bench of the apex court, comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, set aside the bail order in response to a SLP filed by the State (for cancelling the bail), and ordered that Mr. Sanjay surrender within three weeks, while faulting the grounds on which the anticipatory bail had been sanctioned at the given stage of the proceedings.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Telangana guv sends 42% BC quota ordinance to President
Hyderabad: Telangana governor Jishnu Dev Varma has sent the Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Ordinance to the President of India for a decision. The ordinance — aimed at enabling 42% reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) in local bodies in Telangana — was submitted by the Congress govt on July 14 and officially forwarded by the Raj Bhavan on Tuesday. The timing is crucial. With the high court mandating local body elections be held by Sept 30, the President's response will determine whether the state can proceed with its plan to raise the BC quota — a move that challenges the Supreme Court's 50% reservation ceiling. The ordinance, along with two earlier bills seeking 42% BC quota in education, employment, and local bodies, now hangs in the balance. If the 42% reservation for BCs is cleared by the President, total reservation in the state could reach 77% with 15% for SCs, 10% for STs and another 10% for the economically weaker sections. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad At the heart of the issue is section 285A of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, which stipulates reservation norms for village panchayats, mandal parishads, and zilla parishads. As per Supreme Court guidelines, total reservations for SCs, STs, and BCs in local bodies cannot exceed 50%. Under the previous BRS regime, had elections been held, BC reservations would have remained capped at around 22–23%. To address this, the Congress-led govt conducted a comprehensive caste census and, based on empirical data, proposed increasing BC reservations to 42%. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Writing in English Doesn't Have to Feel Hard Grammarly Learn More Undo This led to the formulation of the Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, which sought to remove the 50% cap in local body reservations. Governor's rationale Sources indicate that the governor's decision to escalate the matter to the President stemmed from two main concerns: The state's attempt to override the 50% reservation ceiling — a threshold reaffirmed by various Supreme Court rulings — through legislative amendments and legal ambiguity over whether a state govt possesses the authority to unilaterally remove this cap without prior central approval. Given these concerns — and with the two BC reservation bills already awaiting Presidential assent — the governor chose to refer the ordinance to the President for further examination, sources said. Legal precedent The move also invokes the landmark 1992 Indra Sawhney versus Union of India judgment, in which the Supreme Court ruled that reservations exceeding 50% are permissible only under "extraordinary circumstances" with robust, data-backed justification. The Telangana govt, citing such exceptional grounds, amended section 285A to base reservations on findings from its caste census. However, the ordinance now awaits Presidential review before it can be implemented. The delay in local body elections has already had tangible consequences. In compliance with the high court's orders, the govt aimed to finalise reservations by July 25 and then announce the election schedule. However, the absence of elected bodies has stalled governance at the grassroots level. Development works in villages have come to a grinding halt, and crucial Finance Commission funds — amounting to over ₹1,600 crore — remain frozen, as these can only be released to duly constituted local bodies. The term of existing local governing institutions expired over 18 months ago, resulting in a vacuum of leadership — no sarpanches, mandal parishad territorial constituency members, or zilla parishad territorial constituency members are in place. Cong plans next moves To push for the Centre's assent, the Congress govt has drawn up an action plan. A series of political programmes are scheduled to be held in Delhi between Aug 5 and 7. The state plans to wait until Aug 15 for a response from the Centre. If there is no progress, the govt is contemplating holding the elections with 42% BC reservations regardless of the pending assent, sources said.
