"Why Did You Wait?" Supreme Court's Tough Questions To Cash Row Judge
Hearing Justice Yashwant Varma's plea challenging the Supreme Court's action against him following the cash recovery from his Delhi home, the top court today said the petition "should not have been filed like this" and that the judge's "main issue is with the Supreme Court".
"This petition should not have been filed like this. Please see, the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is (the) Supreme Court as your grievance is against the process mentioned," the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih said.
According to the Supreme Court website, the petition, filed by the judge under the name 'XXX', has three respondents: (1) The Union of India (2) Supreme Court of India (3) Supreme Court of India.
Justice Datta also took exception when he found that the report of the three-judge panel, which probed the allegations against Justice Varma, had not been attached to the petition. "Where is the report of the three-judge panel?" he asked. When Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal replied that the report is in public domain, Justice Datta replied, "No, you should have attached the report with your plea."
Arguing the matter, Mr Sibal pointed to the rules laid down in the Constitution for the removal of a judge. He flagged the action against Justice Varma and said it did not follow due process.
"The constitutional scheme appears to be that unless the misconduct etc is proven on the ground of proven misbehaviour etc, there cannot be a discussion of judges' conduct even in the parliament. If the Constitution scheme is that such conduct cannot be discussed even in Parliament till such misconduct is proven, then it is difficult to believe that such an action is acceptable elsewhere. All the release of tapes, putting on website, and a public furore consequential thereto, media accusations against judges, findings by the public, discussing conduct of judges... all are prohibited. If the procedure allows them to do that, then it is violative of the constitution bench judgment," he said.
The top court referred to former Chief Justice Khanna's letter to the Prime Minister and President, recommending action against Justice Varma. "How do you know the letter asked for impeachment? The letter is not in the public domain," the court asked.
When Mr Sibal said the cash was found in the outhouse and questioned how it could be attributed to the judge, Justice Datta responded, "Police, FIR, staff, all were there and cash was found." The senior lawyer replied that the judge's staff were not present. When Justice Datta asked if Mr Sibal was saying that the committee's report is not worth it, he replied, "No, it's not."
"Why did you not challenge when (the) committee was appointed, why did you wait? Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past," Justice Datta asked. Mr Sibal said Justice Varma appeared before the committee because he thought it would find out who the cash belonged to. The case will be heard next on Wednesday.
Justice Varma made headlines after a massive cash recovery from his Delhi residence during a fire. Following the incident, which triggered allegations of corruption, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court from his earlier posting in the Delhi High Court. The then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-judge panel to investigate the matter. Following the panel's report, the then Chief Justice recommended Justice Varma's removal.
The judge has now challenged this action. He has said the top court panel did not hear him. The judge has said that the Supreme Court's recommendation for his removal based on the panel's report "usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office".
"This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges," it says.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
7 minutes ago
- Mint
Israel Moves to Fire Attorney General Citing Lack of Trust
Israel's cabinet voted to terminate the country's attorney general, who it has been trying to oust for months, but the Supreme Court quickly issued an injunction to block the move pending a review of its legality. Judge Noam Solberg said that process should take place no later than Sept. 4 and in the meantime the government must continue to work with Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. The cabinet's unanimous decision to fire her with immediate effect cited 'substantial and prolonged differences of opinion' between her and the government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not take part in the vote to avoid a conflict of interest —the attorney general oversees state prosecutors involved in his ongoing corruption trial. Baharav Miara was appointed in 2022 by then-Justice Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who now serves as Netanyahu's foreign minister. He has since blamed her for turning against the government and preventing it from implementing its policies. The Attorney General has drawn fire from Netanyahu's government for insisting it abide by a court ruling that ends a decades' long exemption for ultra Orthodox Jewish men from serving in the military, causing a rift between Netanyahu and some of his coalition partners. She also thwarted his appointment of a new head of the Shin Bet security service after he removed the previous chief, arguing this was a conflict of interest because it was investigating his close aids over illegal ties with Qatar. They later agreed that the appointment would be delayed through mid-September. Netanyahu's opponents view the move to get rid of her as part of a wider attempt to shift more power to the executive branch. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
IPFT to celebrate Tipraland Demand Day on Aug 23
Agartala: Indigenous People's Front of Tripura (IPFT), an ally of the ruling BJP in the state govt, has declared Aug 23 as Tipraland Demand Day, reaffirming its push for the elevation of the Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (ADC) to a separate state with full autonomy. IPFT general secretary Swapan Debbarma emphasised that the demand for Tipraland is central to the party's ideology, which has been advocating for over 25 years for empowerment, direct central funding, and ADC autonomy. Despite its alliance with BJP, IPFT maintains its right to pursue independent political objectives, as outlined in their common minimum program, he said. Debbarma announced plans for a massive rally in the city to advocate for Tipraland under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution. The rally will culminate in the submission of a formal memorandum to the governor, urging intervention to address the issue.
United News of India
32 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC gives Centre final four weeks to frame guidelines for pedestrian footpath safety
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today granted the Union government a final four-week deadline to frame comprehensive guidelines aimed at ensuring the safety and accessibility of footpaths for pedestrians across the country. The court made it clear that if the Centre fails to act within this time, it will intervene directly to do what is necessary with the assistance of legal counsel. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan underscored that the issue goes to the heart of public safety and the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 'The instant litigation pertains to the safety of pedestrians,' the court observed, adding that proper, obstruction-free footpaths are essential and must be accessible to persons with disabilities. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, serving as amicus curiae, informed the court that the Centre had not yet formulated the required guidelines. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier constituted a monitoring committee headed by former judge Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre to oversee the implementation of road safety directives, which could begin its task once the guidelines are finalised. On behalf of the Union government, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee assured the court that necessary guidelines would be prepared. The court reiterated its earlier directions issued on May 14, 2025, emphasising that the lack of pedestrian walkways is a major cause of road accidents and fatalities. It had asked the states and union territories to frame their own policies to ensure safe, encroachment-free footpaths. The bench highlighted the urgency of the matter, noting that pedestrians are often forced to walk on roads due to absent or poorly maintained sidewalks, thereby increasing their vulnerability. 'This court has already acknowledged that pedestrians' right to safe footpaths is part of the right to life under Article 21,' the bench reaffirmed. It also reminded the Centre of its obligation to place on record its policies concerning pedestrian safety and to establish a National Road Safety Board within the previously granted six-month timeframe. With a firm stance, the bench concluded, 'No further extension will be granted.' UNI SNG RN
