Justice Varma plea 'irrelevant' amid impeachment motion, say legal experts
After the Supreme Court's in-house committee recommended Justice Varma's removal following its probe, the focus now shifts to the Lok Sabha, where an impeachment motion for his removal is set to be introduced."When the judge admits that money was found in his house, the rest becomes irrelevant," said a legal expert, indicating that the parliamentary inquiry will centre on these admissions. Despite this, Justice Varma "has the right to be heard by the Parliament Inquiry Committee," which could potentially clear his name.Explaining the impeachment process in Parliament, retired Justice Siddharth Mridul told India Today TV, "If there is an impeachment motion, that motion and the committee that is appointed to conduct an inquiry clearly provide all the steps that need to be followed. The impeachment motion process is to take action against a judge who refuses to resign."Justice Mridul pointed out that the in-house inquiry committee's findings are akin to a preliminary probe report, meant "to satisfy the CJI that there is cause to investigate the judge."Meanwhile, legal experts questioned the reasoning behind Varma's approach to the Supreme Court, with one stating, "I don't see why this petition has come to court. If the judge wants to clear his name, he has to go through the procedure provided by the Constitution."Dave found it "inconceivable for the Supreme Court to interfere in Parliament's inquiry process at such an early stage." Emphasising that there is no connection between an in-house inquiry and a parliamentary inquiry, Dave said, "MPs could have initiated impeachment based on the video that surfaced."Serious questions have been raised regarding police conduct in the case. Observers noted "serious, gross lapses by the police" and asked, "Why was the money allowed to disappear?"advertisement"Corruption is rampant in Judiciary -- nobody wants to publicly discuss it," said Dave, pointing to the need for systemic reforms.As the impeachment process unfolds, the potential consequences are significant. "If Parliament's committee gives a clean chit, then that will be final," Dave said, highlighting the ultimate authority of Parliament in judicial impeachment matters. The decision now rests with Parliament, said legal experts, with Justice Mridul saying the in-house panel report is now "irrelevant" as only Parliament, and not the courts, can decide the fate of judges.- EndsMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
24 minutes ago
- First Post
Why has Australia added YouTube to social media ban for teens?
The Anthony Albanese government is set to add YouTube, which is owned by Google, to the list of apps banned for youths. The government had earlier decided to block teens' access to a number of platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat. But why has Australia added YouTube to the list? What do we know about the ban? read more Australia's Parliament passed the law banning social media access for those aged 16 and under in November 2024 Australia's social media ban for teens is expanding. The Anthony Albanese government is set to add YouTube, which is owned by Google, to the list of apps banned for youths. The government had earlier decided to block access to a number of platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat for teenagers. The ban is slated to start on December 10. Albanese had claimed that the idea behind the bill was to protect children from the ills of social media. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He said Australia was leading the world when it came to protecting children. 'Social media has a social responsibility and there is no doubt that Australian kids are being negatively impacted by online platforms so I'm calling time on it,' Albanese said recently. 'Social media is doing social harm to our children, and I want Australian parents to know that we have their backs.' The development comes in the backdrop of Google being set to host its annual 'Google at Parliament House' event. But what do we know about the ban? And why has Australia added YouTube to the mix? Let's take a closer look What we know about ban Australia's Parliament passed the law banning social media for those aged 16 and under in November 2024. The legislation amended Australia's Online Safety Act 2021 which defined people under 16 as 'age-restricted users'. It defined 'age-restricted social media platform' as being where The 'sole purpose, or a significant purpose' is to enable 'online social interaction' between people Users can 'link to, or interact with' others Users can 'post material' The law also mandated a fine of over $30 million if social media companies did not take measures to stop those under the age of 16 from creating accounts on their platforms. They also need to disable existing accounts and work out methods to step those aged 16 and under from bypassing the system. Social media companies have said it remains unclear what they must do to meet the government's requirements under the law. More details about the steps that need to be taken are set to be put before Parliament Wednesday (July 30). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The move was thought to be widely popular with 77 per cent of respondents in one poll backing the ban. However, the ban came in from criticism from experts who accused the government of doing a rush job. At the time, it was uncertain that YouTube would be among the social media companies. The Anthony Albanese-led Australian government earlier carved out an exemption for YouTube. AP However, the government under former communications minister Michelle Rowland later carved out an exemption for YouTube. Rowland told Australia's Parliament YouTube was among the apps 'that can be shown to function like social media in their interactivity but operate with a significant purpose to enable young people to get the education and health support they need'. The other social media companies had slammed the Australian government's move and demanded a 'level playing field'. TikTok described YouTube's exemption as a 'sweetheart deal' and said it was 'irrational and indefensible'. So, what changed? Why has Australia added YouTube to the list? The decision comes as Anika Wells has taken charge of the communications ministry. Wells has said that she received advice from the eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, that YouTube should be added to the list as it 'poses a threat to young people'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Grant last month cited a survey of 2,600 respondents saying that one in four children had viewed harmful content on YouTube. She claimed it was 'the most frequently cited platform in our research'. She also referred to YouTube's 'persuasive design' and algorithm that keep young people on the platform. Wells said online gaming, messaging, education and health apps would be excluded from the ban. This is because they 'pose fewer social media harms to under 16s', she explained. 'The Albanese government is giving kids a reprieve from the persuasive and pervasive pull of social media while giving parents peace of mind,' Wells said. . The government had earlier decided to block teens' access to a number of platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat, AFP 'There's a place for social media, but there's not a place for predatory algorithms targeting children.' 'We want kids to know who they are before platforms assume who they are,' she added. 'There is no one perfect solution when it comes to keeping young Australians safer online – but the social media minimum age will make a significantly positive difference to their wellbeing.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It must be pointed out that though teenagers will be unable to make YouTube accounts, they will be able to see videos on the website. YouTube Kids will remain exempt from the ban. What is YouTube saying? YouTube has protested the ban. 'YouTube is a video sharing platform, not a social media service, that offers benefit and value to younger Australians,' a spokesperson said. It said it will 'consider next steps' and 'continue to engage' with the Albanese government. Experts too have expressed opposition to the ban and scepticism about its efficacy. They say that though harmful content and platform design are concerns, they add that smart regulations and digital literacy is needed. They say the right's of children must be balanced against free speech. Australia isn't alone. Norway has announced plans for a similar social media law, while the UK has expressed interest in doing so too. With inputs from agencies
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC questions Justice Varma's conduct in cash row, reserves order on plea
The Supreme Court told Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday that his conduct did not inspire confidence and asked why he chose to move the apex court after an in-house committee found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row. The top court was hearing Justice Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery matter. The in-house inquiry panel report indicted Justice Varma over the discovery of a huge cache of burnt cash from his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge. The plea does not reveal Justice Varma's identity and is titled, "XXX v. The Union of India". Posing sharp questions to the judge, the top court asked Justice Varma why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee and did not challenge it then and there. It told Justice Varma that he should have come earlier to the apex court against the in-house inquiry panel's report. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said the in-house process was put in place in 1999 and the chief justice of India (CJI) cannot be considered as a mere post office. "The Chief Justice of India is not supposed to be a post office only. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If material comes to him regarding misconduct, he is only to inform the president and the prime minister. Nothing more. "If on the basis of the material, it is found that misdemeanour is so serious calling for an action, he would be affirming earlier decisions of this court that CJI has the power to do so," Justice Datta remarked orally. The top court reserved its order on Justice Varma's petition challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the CJI's recommendation for his removal. As the hearing commenced, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, referred to Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution and said it lays down a complete procedure for the removal of a judge, and any parallel or extra-constitutional mechanism falls outside the framework of the Constitution. Article 124 deals with the appointment and removal of Supreme Court judges, while Article 218 applies the same provisions to high court judges. He said the removal of a judge is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act and an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge's removal. Sibal submitted that the in-house inquiry panel's recommendation for his removal is unconstitutional. He said the in-house inquiry is merely an administrative procedure and it lacks the safeguards of the ?Judges Inquiry Act, 1968?, such as strict standards of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses. Stating that a recommendation for removal in this manner would set a dangerous precedent, Sibal said a recommendation for removal from the CJI "sounds the death knell" for a judge. Countering Sibal's argument, Justice Datta said three judgments have reaffirmed the in-house procedure after it came into force. The in-house procedure has its origins in the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court, Justice Datta said. When the bench asked what relief Justice Varma was seeking, Sibal replied that he wanted a declaration that the CJI's recommendation for Justice Varma's removal was "non-est" ("not existing") and unconstitutional. Justice Datta said that relief cannot stop the proceedings at this stage. Sibal said when the CJI recommends the removal of a judge on the basis of an in-house procedure which holds great persuasive value. "Since it comes from a high constitutional authority, which can influence the process in Parliament, by making such a recommendation, the CJI is interfering with the domain of Parliament," Sibal said. On the question of delay in approaching the top court, Sibal said a tape was released on the SC website and the judge's reputation was already damaged. "What would I come to court for?" he said. "The points you are raising are major, but could have been raised before, and thus your conduct does not inspire confidence and your conduct says a lot," the bench remarked. "The tapes have been put on the website. Does that mean everything is vitiated and you will go scot-free?" the bench said. "The problem is that the report emanates from the CJI's office and if I show you the statements, please see the statements by the political parties. The statements say the committee has forced us to move the motion," Sibal said. "The in-house committee report is a preliminary report and cannot affect future proceedings. We cannot go by newspaper reports," Justice Datta said. "But I cannot challenge the committee report there in Parliament," Sibal said. "If some Parliamentarian says something, even if he is a minister, it matters little," the bench added. "You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India. When you know in-house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only Parliament can do it, you should have come then and there," the top court said. The top court also pulled advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. During the hearing, Justice Datta questioned Nedumpara on whether he had even approached the police with a formal complaint before seeking the registration of an FIR. It also reserved its order on a separate petition filed by Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR.
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Nithari killings: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as many as 14 appeals against the acquittal of accused Surendra Koli in the sensational 2006 Nithari serial killings case. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran said that there was 'no perversity' in the findings of the Allahabad High Court acquitting Koli. Referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the CJI said the recovery of skulls and other belongings of the victims from an open drain was not made following the statement of Koli before the police. The bench said any recovery made without recording the statement of the accused by the police is not admissible as evidence under the Evidence law. It said only those recoveries, which are made from a place accessible to the accused only, can be admitted as evidence in a case primarily hinging on circumstantial evidence. The top court last year agreed to examine separate pleas, including those filed by the CBI and the Uttar Pradesh government, challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision acquitting Koli on October 16, 2023. One of the pleas was filed by the father of one of the victims challenging the high court's verdict. Moninder Singh Pandher and his domestic help Koli were accused of rape and murder of people, mostly children from their neighbourhood in Nithari in Uttar Pradesh. Koli was awarded the death penalty on September 28, 2010 by the trial court. The high court acquitted Pandher and Koli in the death penalty case, holding the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' and called it a 'botched up' investigation. Reversing the death sentence given to Koli in 12 cases and Pandher in two cases, the high court said the probe was 'nothing short of a betrayal of public trust by responsible agencies'.
