Cash recovery row: Supreme Court to hear Justice Yashwant Varma's plea against impeachment; Judge claims 'no fair opportunity'
Justice Varma has alleged that he was denied a "fair opportunity" to respond to the allegations before the committee concluded its report.
The controversy stems from an incident on March 14, when a fire broke out at his residence in Delhi -- where he then served as a judge of the Delhi high court. Fire personnel allegedly discovered a large amount of cash at the site.
Justice Varma was not present at the time of the incident.
Meanwhile, parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju confirmed on Friday that the Lok Sabha will take up a bipartisan motion for the removal of Justice Varma, following a consensus among political parties. Rijiju stated that 152 MPs from both the ruling alliance and the Opposition have signed the motion, and that the matter will proceed in accordance with the Judges (Enquiry) Act.
"This was a unanimous decision by all parties. The motion will first be taken up in the Lok Sabha and then move to the Rajya Sabha," Rijiju said, emphasising unity against perceived judicial corruption.
"We shouldn't remain in any doubt, proceedings will begin in the Lok Sabha," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
2 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Monsoon Session Live Fiery Bihar SIR probe continues in Rajya Sabha
The INDIA bloc is pushing hard for a parliamentary discussion on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) issue. This comes amid concerns that the electoral roll revision could disenfranchise marginalized communities, particularly in Bihar, ahead of the state's upcoming assembly elections. In fact, Opposition MPs like Congress's Manickam Tagore have submitted adjournment motions in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, demanding an urgent debate on the matter. Show more 05:01 03:26 03:01 04:27 03:54 03:07 12:45 01:56 04:04 03:15 04:14 02:49 04:23 06:56 04:36 02:12 03:11 08:45 05:31 03:21 18:22 12:02 18:58 05:28
The Hindu
5 minutes ago
- The Hindu
President reference ‘misleading', wants SC to sit on appeal against its own verdict in TN Governor case: Kerala to SC
The State of Kerala on Monday (July 28, 2025) urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether judiciary can fix timelines for the President and State Governors to clear State Bills, saying it is a ruse to make the apex court sit in appeal of its own authoritative pronouncement in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. The Constitution, the State said, does not allow the apex court to sit in appeal of its own judgments, nor can the President vest appellate jurisdiction in the court through a Presidential Reference. The State said the Reference was 'misleading' and 'suppressed facts'. Kerala, represented by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and C.K. Sasi, said the President can only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the apex court. Quoting judicial precedents, including the 1993 Reference in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the State said powers of the Governors and the President under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution have been the subject of three separate authoritative judgments in the cases filed by the States of Telangana, Punjab and, finally, Tamil Nadu on April 8. 'When the Supreme Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is. The decision of this court on a question of law is binding on all courts and authorities. Hence, the President can refer a question of law only when this court has not decided it,' Kerala submitted. The State pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala on April 8 has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the Presidential Reference in May. If the government wanted to challenge the April 8 judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative petition in the apex court, and not take the route of Presidential Reference, Kerala said. The State argued the very fact the government has not sought a review of the April 8 judgment, establishing it as settled law. 'The Union of India has not filed any review or curative petition against the judgment delivered by the court in the Tamil Nadu case, and has thus accepted the judgment…The judgment, having not been assailed or set aside in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141, and cannot be challenged obliquely in collateral proceedings such as in the instant reference. The President and the Council of Ministers have to act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144 of the Constitution,' the State of Kerala reasoned. EOM
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC stays PMLA trial as chargesheet in predicate case pending for 7 yrs
The Supreme Court has stayed a trial against four women accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) because a chargesheet in the original criminal case has not been filed even after seven years, Live Law reported. The order came from a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, after hearing arguments by Senior Advocate PB Suresh. He appeared for the petitioners and pointed out that they were not named in the original offence (called the predicate offence). He questioned how the PMLA trial could proceed when no chargesheet had been filed in that base case. While staying the trial for the four petitioners, the Supreme Court also issued notices to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Indian Bank, which is the complainant in the original case. What is the case? In 2018, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 420 (cheating), Section 468 (forgery), and Section 471 (using forged documents) of the Indian Penal Code. This was based on a complaint by Indian Bank against Cethar Limited and others, the news report said. Following this, the Enforcement Directorate filed a money laundering case (ECIR) based on the same FIR, which brought the petitioners under investigation. The four women approached the trial court asking to be discharged from the PMLA case, but their plea was rejected. They then filed a criminal revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Madras High Court. Left with no other option, they approached the Supreme Court. What did the petitioners say? All four petitioners are women and family members of the former Chairman and Managing Director of Cethar Limited. They claim they had no role in the company's financial or operational decisions. According to petitioners, they have been accused only because of their relationship with the former MD. They also pointed out that they are not named in the original FIR by the CBI and that there is no proof showing they received or controlled any "proceeds of crime". Despite this, their jewellery and other belongings have been seized, and the company itself is now under liquidation, Live Law reported. Similar cases cited To support their plea, the petitioners referred to the Telangana High Court's decision in Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs Directorate of Enforcement. In that case, the high court had paused the PMLA trial until the main case (predicate offence) was decided by the special court. That case involved alleged bribery and irregular allotment of mining leases to Bharathi Cement Corporation, linked to the Andhra Pradesh government. The ED had filed a money laundering case against the company and others, including Bharathi Reddy, wife of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy. While the case had reached the Supreme Court, it was later withdrawn at the ED's request.
