Justice Varma row: Congress seeks SC-appointed panel's report to decide its stand on impeachment proposal
Congress sources told ThePrint that the party conveyed to the government that access to the committee's report was essential to determine its position on the proposed impeachment of Justice Varma, who is currently posted at the Allahabad High Court but has not been assigned any judicial work.
New Delhi: The Congress has asked the Centre for the report of the Supreme Court-appointed committee investigating allegations of corruption against Justice Yashwant Varma. The Union government has informed the party of its decision to initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge, sources said Friday.
On 14 March, wads of currency notes were discovered in a room at Justice Varma's official residence in New Delhi, while he was serving as a judge at the Delhi High Court. The incident sent shockwaves through judicial and political circles.
Justice Varma was subsequently repatriated to the Allahabad High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium and has rejected the allegations against him in response to probes undertaken by the Delhi High Court chief justice and the SC committee.
While the Congress has formally demanded the inquiry report of the SC committee, some of its legal brains have argued that the report of the panel could not be the sole basis to impeach the judge.
The committee, set up by former Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna, comprised the chief justices of Punjab and Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice GS Sandhawalia respectively, and Karnataka High court judge Justice Anu Sivaraman.
The committee submitted its report on 3 May. On 8 May, days before his retirement, Justice Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, enclosing a copy of the inquiry report and Justice Varma's response.
Congress sources said that the party is consulting legal experts on the need to get the government to follow the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 which kicks in once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the chambers of Parliament.
Under the Act, the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of one of the 25 high courts and a 'distinguished jurist'.
In a public statement Wednesday, Congress Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha also questioned the unavailability of the three-member SC committee report with MPs.
'Chairman Rajya Sabha, an eminent SC lawyer, is on record saying that the three judge inquiry report has no constitutional or legal sanctity. It's conducted for the benefit of CJI & SC judges. Not a legal material for parliamentarians to move a motion! Is the government short of legal advice?' Tankha asked.
Earlier, when Dhankhar sought to make a case for the revival of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) citing the Justice Varma episode, the Congress had indicated that it was open to the idea of changes in the judicial appointments process.
'The recent incident of recovery of cash from the residence of a judge is indeed alarming. While the Congress Party recognises that an independent judiciary is intrinsic to protection of Constitutional principles and democracy, it is also true that Judiciary must set safeguards and standards for accountability. A mechanism for judicial accountability, without compromising judicial independence, is the need of the hour,' stated a resolution adopted by the All India Congress Committee at its session in Ahmedabad in April.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Hidden in plain sight: The unanswered questions in the Justice Varma cash controversy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Rahul looks back at where he faltered: Didn't protect OBCs because I couldn't understand their issues at the time
A day after he said that the Congress 'fell short' of understanding issues faced by the OBCs and that 'opened up the space' for the BJP, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Friday said that he didn't protect the OBC community's interests earlier in his political career as the issues faced by them are complex and not easily visible. Addressing a Bhagidari Nyay Sammelan of OBCs at the Talkatora Stadium in Delhi, Gandhi said that while he should score well on issues related to Tribals, Dalits, minorities and women, he couldn't understand the problems of OBCs and admitted that he didn't do enough for the community. He also said that he will be working 'double' on this front from now on. 'Since 2004, I have been in politics. Twenty-one years have passed. When I look back, and in a way, analyse myself – where I did the right thing and where I lacked – I see a couple of big issues. I worked on the Land Acquisition Bill, MGNREGA, Right to Food, Tribal Bill… These things I did well. I feel I should get good marks on issues of Tribals, Dalits, minorities, women… When I look back, I see one thing clearly. I lacked on one thing, made a mistake – what was it? The Congress and I made a mistake. I should have protected the OBC section; I didn't. The reason for this was that I didn't understand your issues at the time,' he said. Gandhi said that around a decade ago, he 'could see the problems faced by Dalits' – 'it was clear and I understood it'. 'Untouchability is their history,' he said. Talking of Tribals, Gandhi said, 'It is easy to understand issues of Tribals – jungle (forest), jal (water), zameen (land) are right there for you to see.' 'But the OBC issues are hidden, and not easy to see. My regret is that if I knew your history and issues, I would have got the caste census done then. And it is my mistake and not the Congress's. The good thing is that if I had got the caste census done then, it wouldn't have been as good as it will be now,' he said. Gandhi said that the Telangana caste survey is like a 'tsunami' and that its 'aftershock' will be felt soon. 'The way the tsunami came… The earthquake that led to the tsunami wasn't seen. It was under the sea… When the tsunami came, its impact was felt 2-3 hours later. The same has happened in Telangana,' he said.
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC extends relief for Rahul Gandhi in Veer Savarkar defamation case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday extended its order staying the summons issued to Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case related to his alleged derogatory remarks about freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. In November 2022, during his Bharat Jodo Yatra, Rahul Gandhi made defamatory remarks against Savarkar at a rally in Maharashtra's Akola. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih deferred the scheduled hearing for four weeks after a letter seeking adjournment was submitted in the matter. In the meantime, the Justice Datta-led Bench ordered extension of the interim relief originally granted to Rahul Gandhi on April 25. Further, it asked the complainant, advocate Nripendra Pandey, to file his reply within two weeks and granted liberty to Rahul Gandhi to file a rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter. In an earlier hearing, the apex court had cautioned Rahul Gandhi against making 'irresponsible statements', specifically asking him not to speak anything against freedom fighters. The Supreme Court had warned that if the Congress leader made any such comments in the future, it would initiate "suo motu" action against him. 'Let's be clear, any further statement and we will take suo moto! We will not allow you to speak anything about our freedom fighters. They have given us freedom, and this is how we treat them?' said the Justice Datta-led bench as it dealt with Rahul Gandhi's petition to quash a 2022 defamation case filed against him. After senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Rahul Gandhi, gave an oral undertaking that the Congress leader would refrain from making such comments in future, the apex court had passed an interim order staying the order of the lower court summoning him to face trial for the offences under Sections 153-A and 505 of the now-repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC). Before this, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had declined to exercise its inherent powers in favour of Rahul Gandhi, who had sought the quashing of the entire legal proceedings. A single-judge Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, in its order passed on April 4, said that Rahul Gandhi had the statutory remedy of filing a revision against the order of the trial court. Under the IPC, 1860, Section 153-A addressed the offence of 'promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, caste, etc.," and Section 505 dealt with 'statements conducing to public mischief".
Mint
18 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Agenda Stuck in Legal Wrangling Despite Supreme Court Wins
President Donald Trump has cast successes at the US Supreme Court as broad endorsements of his authority to fire agency heads, shrink the government workforce and halt billions of dollars in federal spending. Some lower court judges see it differently. Supreme Court rulings are supposed to be the final word on disagreements over the law. But the growing number of decisions being issued with little explanation on an emergency basis — often referred to as the 'shadow docket' — is creating even more legal wrangling. Now, tensions are building not only between the executive branch and the courts, but also within the judiciary. 'This is not helpful at all for lower court judges,' said Dickinson College President John Jones, a former federal district judge in Pennsylvania confirmed during the George W. Bush administration. 'You're reading an abbreviated opinion from the Supreme Court like it's a Rosetta Stone.' The Justice Department has been arguing that the emergency track wins should translate into victories in other lawsuits against Trump's agenda. Federal judges are pushing back, saying the high court isn't giving them enough to work with. This week, the Supreme Court stepped in to settle one such dispute that one of its earlier orders created. A Maryland federal judge had blocked Trump's removal of Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, saying it was different in key ways from a firing fight the justices resolved in the president's favor on May 22. In a two-paragraph order on Wednesday, the conservative majority said the district judge got it wrong, and the officials couldn't keep their jobs while they pressed the merits of their lawsuit. The problem, some judges say, is that more cases are reaching the justices on an emergency basis — often in the early stages, without oral arguments and with minimal or no explanation. These orders are frequently just a few paragraphs issued in weeks or even days, in stark contrast with argued cases that unfold over months and result in lengthy opinions offering more robust guidance. In yet another in the growing stack of firing cases, a Washington federal judge last week refused to let Trump oust Democrats from the Federal Trade Commission. US District Judge Loren AliKhan said she wouldn't read the 'tea leaves' in the justices' May 22 decision, a four-paragraph order that let Trump fire top officials at two other agencies. That ruling 'weighs against' the dismissed officials, she said, but doesn't settle questions over a 90-year-old precedent limiting a president's firing power at federal agencies. 'It would be an act of judicial hubris' to base a decision on what the justices might do later, AliKhan wrote in her order reinstating one of the commissioners. She was 'unsure of what to make of' the justices' order, absent more details about what they intended or how they reached their outcome. An appeals court has temporarily paused her ruling. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. A senior White House official who requested anonymity to discuss pending litigation said lower court judges aren't respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court's orders as well as the rulings themselves, and seemed to be taking extraordinary steps to avoid applying them to other cases. The official accused judges of defying the Supreme Court because of policy disagreements. The conflicts are growing as the Trump administration has taken lower court losses to the justices on an emergency basis 21 times so far this year. Unlike cases the court hears on the merits, emergency cases usually don't involve in-person arguments, robust written briefs or lengthy opinions that explain how the majority reached a decision. They don't offer a rubric for lower courts to apply new precedents going forward. For the Supreme Court's 2023-24 term, the average length of a majority opinion was 5,010 words, according to Empirical SCOTUS, a blog that tracks data on the high court. The majority's July 14 emergency order that allowed the administration to go ahead with Education Department layoffs — praised by Trump on social media as 'a Major Victory' — was only 104 words. There are rare exceptions, such as the fight over Trump's birthright citizenship plan, in which the justices heard arguments and wrote a lengthy opinion. Still, the majority's June decision — which Trump called a 'GIANT WIN' on social media — left key issues unresolved for lower courts to sort through. The justices curbed judges' authority to expansively halt government actions but didn't completely rule out nationwide blocks. They didn't touch the core question of whether Trump's executive order is constitutional. In an emergency order, the Supreme Court considers which side is ultimately likely to succeed on the underlying legal questions, but the justices also focus on the harm each side might suffer in the interim. Tension on the Supreme Court over the escalating shadow docket activity predates Trump's latest term in office. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in 2021 that the conservative majority's use of the process resulted in decisions that were becoming 'more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.' Justice Samuel Alito accused critics of portraying the process as something 'sinister' in order to 'intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution.' In remarks to a federal judges' conference on Thursday, Kagan underscored her concerns about the challenges that emergency orders create for lower courts. The justices 'don't usually meet about shadow docket matters and discuss them in the way we do with merits cases,' she said. There is 'a real responsibility that I think we didn't recognize when we first started down this road to explain things better.' The Trump administration's 21 emergency requests in six months exceeds the total number brought by the Biden administration and during the combined presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, according to research by Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor and prominent critic of the court's use of the shadow docket. The government has won 16 of the cases at least in part, even if only temporarily. The administration withdrew one application and largely lost four cases, including one filed by Venezuelans who were at risk of being sent to a notorious Salvadoran prison. Trump's wave of policies testing the bounds of presidential power has been met with a deluge of lawsuits, many of which have included requests by challengers for swift intervention by judges. The Justice Department, in turn, has quickly moved to at least temporarily halt the effects of lower court losses while it appeals. But that strategy hasn't always worked. It took just over two weeks for a federal appeals court in Boston to deny the government's emergency request to resume cuts to scientific research grants that a district judge blocked. In a July 18 order, a three-judge panel said it had 'no difficulty distinguishing' the facts of the case from the justices' emergency order in April letting the administration cut teacher-training grants. The Justice Department on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the grant fight. In its latest emergency application the administration claimed that 'district-court defiance' of the justices' April order 'has grown to epidemic proportions' in other funding cases. A Boston federal judge this month rejected the Justice Department's attempt to 'misguidedly argue' that two other Supreme Court orders required her to let Trump fire Department of Health and Human Services workers. In the first order, the justices said Trump could broadly proceed with a push to shrink the federal workforce but didn't rule on the lawfulness of any agency plan. In the other, the majority didn't offer an explanation when it let layoffs continue at the Education Department. The HHS case was likely to 'wind its way up and down the appellate courts,' US District Judge Melissa DuBose wrote, but 'this court declines the defendants' invitation to short circuit that process.' Soon after the Supreme Court ruled in the mass firing fight, the San Francisco federal judge handling that case rejected the government's argument that it was effectively over. US District Judge Susan Illston wrote that the justices' 'terse order' was 'inherently preliminary' and left issues unsettled. With agencies carrying out layoffs following the Supreme Court's order, she wrote, 'the issues in this case remain of significant public importance.' The Justice Department raced to a federal appeals court, which this week temporarily paused Illston's latest order while it decides what to do. Should the government lose the latest round, it could bring the case back to the justices. With assistance from Suzanne Monyak and Greg Stohr. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
