Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha? Government to take call on Yashwant Varma removal route
NEW DELHI: With many from the Opposition parties indicating support for the move to evict him from judiciary, the government is soon to take a call on whether to bring the motion for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, in Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha in the Monsoon session of Parliament, beginning on July 21.
The law requires a motion for removal to be endorsed by 100 LS MPs. The required number is 50 in the case of Rajya Sabha.
Govt has been holding consultations with the Opposition parties. The process for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court, or a high court, is provided under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which says that "a Judge of the SC, or the high court, shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
"
To initiate a removal proceeding, Constitution has laid down very stringent conditions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which requires Parliament to set up a three-member committee comprising the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court, a chief justice of a high court and a noted jurist, to probe with evidence if the judge was indeed guilty of "misbehaviour or incapacity".
The committee is constituted only after a motion is moved in Parliament for removal, addressed to the President 'praying for the removal of a judge'.
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
Once the motion is moved, Speaker of Lok Sabha or the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, as the case may be, may consider admitting the motion and constitute an inquiry committee under Section 3(2) of Judges (Inquiry) Act.
In this case, the Supreme Court has already constituted a three-member in-house inquiry committee comprising chief justices of Punjab and Haryana high court and Himachal Pradesh high court, and a judge of Karnataka high court.
Based on their findings and examination and recording of statements of more than 50 witnesses, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna recommended Justice Varma's removal to the President and the Prime Minister.
The govt is likely to share the findings of the in-house report with the inquiry committee, which is mandated to be set up by Parliament after a motion for removal is adopted, under Judges (Inquiry) Act: something which may help the panel and enable it to submit its report soon.
Others who faced removal
As reported by TOI earlier, Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta high court was the first judge against whom the Rajya Sabha had voted with the required majority on a removal motion in 2011. But the judge finally resigned to avoid his removal. The first case of a removal motion in Parliament was against Justice V Ramaswami, a judge of SC, in 1991. But he escaped being removed as the motion failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in Lok Sabha.
Justice PD Dinakaran, the then chief justice of Sikkim high court, resigned in 2011 before the removal proceedings were initiated in Rajya Sabha. In 2015, a similar motion was moved in Rajya Sabha against Justice JB Pardiwala of Gujarat high court. However, the judge later removed a controversial statement from a judgment of his that had stoked the controversy. The latest case was against Justice SK Gangele of Madhya Pradesh high court when 58 MPs of Rajya Sabha moved the motion.
However, an inquiry committee absolved the judge of sexual harassment charges against him.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
36 minutes ago
- NDTV
MLA Will Go Scot-Free, Team Shinde Has Done It Before: Priyanka Chaturvedi
Seeking to draw a clear distinction between the actions of workers of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and a former MP from her party and those of the MLA of Eknath Shinde's Shiv Sena who assaulted a canteen worker over the quality of dal, Priyanka Chaturvedi, an MP from the Uddhav Thackeray faction of the Sena, said comparing them would be wrong. Speaking exclusively to NDTV on Wednesday, the Rajya Sabha MP said the law had followed its course in the case of the assault of a shopkeeper by MNS workers for asking why speaking in Marathi should be compulsory while MLA Sanjay Gaikwad, who assaulted a worker in the canteen of the MLAs' hostel in Mumbai, would go scot-free. "The person who is beating the canteen worker is an elected representative of Maharashtra. He's an MLA, which comes with a whole lot of responsibility, and that responsibility and maturity should have come from him. And it's also different simply because Eknath Shinde's faction has been repeatedly indulging in this. If you remember, when stand-up comic Kunal Kamra had cracked a joke about Mr Shinde, a group of people had gone and broken down the studio, which was a means of livelihood for several people, several other stand-up comedians," she argued. The assault on a shopkeeper in Mira-Bhayender near Mumbai, she said, wasn't about language, but "disrespect". "There was an incident which went out of hand and there was a law-and-order mechanism which was followed. These people were detained and they were booked under some sections which were bailable and they got bail... In this particular case, you will not even have an FIR against this man, who is an elected representative. In this particular case, there will be no one to speak up against him... he will get away scot-free... I am not trying to justify anything, I am just trying to make you aware of the difference," Ms Chaturvedi said. 'Situation Escalated' On Rajan Vichare, former MP from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), at whose office some traders were slapped for allegedly not speaking in Marathi, Ms Chaturvedi said the incident had nothing to do with language. A Shiv Sena (UBT) worker, she claimed, had been beaten up because he asked for a prepaid mobile connection and Mr Vichare had called the attackers to his office to ask them why they had done so. The situation, she said, "escalated" and emphasised that Mr Vichare's constituency has a large north Indian population, which is something he celebrates. Thackeray Reunion MNS chief Raj Thackeray and Uddhav Thackeray shared a stage last week, the Rajya Sabha MP said, because the BJP-led Maharashtra government had issued a government resolution (GR) making Hindi as a third-language compulsory in the state from Class 1. "The argument was why should a language be made compulsory and if Maharashtra is going to get Hindi as a compulsory third language, what is the third language in states which are Hindi-speaking? And the BJP was pressurised not just by political parties, but various people, various sections were also outraged about this. That imposing a language is not the right way of ensuring that people learn the language," Ms Chaturvedi said. "When the GR was taken back, that is when both brothers came on stage for that particular issue. Please understand, even I am Hindi speaking, we are not against the language. We have an entire Hindi film industry working out of Mumbai. We have an entire Hindi television industry working out of Mumbai. Out of 12 crore people in the state of Maharashtra, over one crore come from various states that are Hindi-speaking. Why is it that one or two incidents are raising so many eyebrows against one crore people happily coexisting with the people of Maharashtra. So, one or two incidents could also be due to a lot of provocation," she pointed out.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Punjab CM Mann seeks legitimate share in Indus waters
CHANDIGARH: Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann on Wednesday suggested that the Indus Water Treaty suspension could be beneficial for the state if 23 million acre-feet of Chenab waters are diverted to Punjab, Haryana and even Madhya Pradesh, effectively solving the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute. Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini was also present at the meeting called by Union Jal Shakti Minister C R Patil to resolve the issue between Punjab and Haryana, as directed by the Supreme Court, which will next hear the case on August 13. CM Mann said that the recent decision by the Union Government to suspend the Indus Water Treaty opens up the possibility of greater utilisation of water from the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) within Indian territory. He added that Punjab, which is currently facing groundwater depletion, must be prioritised in any future strategies for the usage, diversion, or allocation of river waters. Mann said that waters of the western rivers should be allocated to Punjab on a priority basis, and new storage dams upstream of existing Bhakra and Pong dams in Himachal Pradesh should be constructed. He said that this will significantly enhance the storage and regulation of western river waters. Mann said that it is the need of the hour so that Punjab, which has over exploited its only available natural resources in terms of water and fertile land for making country self reliant in food production, is duly compensated. "If we get 23 (million acre-feet) MAF of water from these rivers, the whole dispute will be resolved forever. We will use some of it and send the rest to Haryana," he suggested.
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
Bihar Election: Supreme Court agrees fresh pleas challenging ECI's voter revision drive
New Delhi [India], July 9 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear two more pleas challenging the Election Commission of India's move to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi agreed to hear the pleas on July 10, along with other pending petitions. Advocate Vrinda Grover and another advocate mentioned for urgent listing. Grover said the plea filed by two social activists, Arshad Ajmal and Rupesh Kumar, challenged the poll panel's June 24 decision to conduct the SIR of electoral rolls in the state and urged for listing it with other matters. On July 7, the apex court agreed to hear on July 10 petitions challenging the ECI's decision. The petitions challenging the ECI decision were filed by RJD MP Manoj Jha, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), PUCL, activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra, and former Bihar MLA Mujahid Alam. The petitions sought a direction to quash the ECI's June 24 directive, which requires large sections of voters in Bihar to submit proof of citizenship to remain on the electoral rolls. ADR, in its petition, has submitted that the ECI order imposes fresh documentation requirements and shifts the burden of proof from the state to the citizen. The petition also raised concerns over the exclusion of widely held documents like Aadhaar and ration cards, stating that this would disproportionately affect the poor and marginalised voters, especially in rural Bihar. 'The SIR order, if not set aside, can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of voters from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution,' the petition submitted. RJD MP said the decision, which has been taken without any consultation with the political parties, is 'being used to justify aggressive and opaque revisions of electoral rolls that disproportionately target Muslim, Dalit and poor migrant communities, as such, they are not random patterns but are engineered exclusions.' (ANI)
