Justice Dhulia goes down memory laneat alma mater
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Captain Manoj Kumar Pandey Uttar Pradesh Sainik School hosted Justice Dhulia where he inaugurated the school's girls hostel, renamed as Rani Laxmi Bai Hostel. School officials said that Justice Dhulia was a cadet of the institution in 1972. Justice Dhulia, who was accompanied by his wife Vaishali Dhulia, got emotional remembering the old days spent at the school. Addressing students, he spoke on the importance of reading books and discussed the growing influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in our daily lives.
"AI has many benefits in facilitating modern life, but its destructive side effects are not only dangerous but can also be life-threatening," he said. Other distinguished cadets like IAS Raj Kamal Yadav, director, industries, Sudhir Tyagi were also present.
Justice Dhulia paid floral tributes to all the martyrs at the War Memorial in the school.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
44 minutes ago
- Hans India
High Court Judge Seeks Anonymous Status In Supreme Court Challenge Against Removal Recommendation
In an unprecedented judicial development, Justice Yashwant Varma has filed a petition in the Supreme Court under concealed identity, challenging the conclusions of an investigative committee that advised his dismissal from the judiciary. The case appears on Monday's Supreme Court docket as "XXX vs The Union of India," with the placeholder representing Justice Varma's concealed identity. The anonymity request represents an unusual legal strategy, as such identity protection is typically reserved for sexual assault survivors, rape victims, and cases involving minors or juveniles. Justice Varma has specifically requested the apex court's permission to maintain confidentiality regarding his identity throughout the proceedings. The controversy stems from a significant cash discovery at Justice Varma's official Delhi residence following a fire incident on March 14. The judge was absent from the premises when the blaze occurred, leading to the unexpected revelation of substantial currency holdings within his quarters. Subsequently, a Supreme Court-constituted internal investigation committee determined there was "adequate evidence" supporting the allegations against the judicial officer. The panel concluded that Justice Varma and his family members maintained direct oversight of the location where the monetary cache was discovered. Following these findings, Justice Varma was administratively transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On July 18, he formally approached the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the internal inquiry report and the former Chief Justice of India's dismissal recommendation. In his legal arguments, Justice Varma contends that revealing his identity would result in "irreversible damage and harm" should his application be rejected. He emphasizes that as an active High Court judge, the internal investigation process was structured to maintain strict confidentiality protocols. The petitioner argues that public disclosure of his identity at this juncture would significantly compromise his professional dignity and personal reputation, particularly since the allegations remain unsubstantiated through formal legal proceedings. He maintains that premature exposure could prejudice any future deliberations regarding his case. Justice Varma has specifically cited previous unauthorized media disclosures of confidential inquiry documents, claiming these leaks resulted in "misleading and prejudicial reporting" against him. He argues that such unauthorized revelations have already damaged his standing within the legal community and public perception. Currently facing potential impeachment proceedings in Parliament, Justice Varma's petition challenges both the procedural integrity and substantive conclusions of the internal investigation. He alleges the inquiry process contained fundamental procedural deficiencies and relied exclusively on "speculative questions rather than formal complaints." The case represents a unique intersection of judicial accountability mechanisms and individual privacy rights within India's legal system. The Supreme Court's handling of this anonymity request could establish important precedents for future cases involving judicial officers under investigation. The petition seeks comprehensive relief including the complete dismissal of the inquiry report and the withdrawal of removal recommendations made by judicial authorities. Justice Varma's legal team argues that the investigation failed to meet established procedural standards required for such serious allegations against sitting judges. This development occurs amid broader discussions regarding transparency and accountability within India's higher judiciary, highlighting the delicate balance between public scrutiny and individual rights within the legal profession.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Cash haul row: SC questions Justice Yashwant Varma over his petition against impeachment; posts plea for hearing on July 30
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday raised several questions while hearing Justice Yashwant Varma's plea seeking to invalidate an in-house inquiry committee's report that indicted him over a large quantity of burnt cash found at his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi high court judge. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih questioned senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, asking, "Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you come to the court that the video be removed? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?" The bench also expressed concern over the parties named in the petition and observed that the in-house inquiry report should have been filed along with the plea. In response, Sibal argued that Article 124 lays out the process and said, "The release of video on SC website, public furore, media accusations against judges are prohibited as per constitutional scheme." The court then directed Sibal to file one-page bullet points and correct the memo of parties, and posted the matter for hearing on July 30. Justice Varma has challenged the May 8 recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, which urged Parliament to begin impeachment proceedings against him. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo In his plea, Justice Varma claimed the inquiry had "reversed the burden of proof", effectively requiring him to disprove the allegations instead of the panel proving them. He alleged that the panel's findings followed a 'preconceived narrative,' and that the inquiry was rushed 'even at the expense of procedural fairness'. According to the petition, the panel reached adverse conclusions without granting him a full and fair hearing. The report, prepared by a three-judge committee led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana high court, concluded that Justice Varma and his family had "covert or active control" over the storeroom where the half-burnt cash was discovered, amounting to serious misconduct warranting removal. The panel conducted the inquiry over ten days, examined 55 witnesses, and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11:35 pm on March 14 at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. At the time, he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge; he currently serves in the Allahabad high court. Following the findings, then CJI Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court raps MP minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for not issuing public apology to Col Sofiya Qureshi
The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up Madhya Pradesh minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for not issuing a public apology over his remarks against Indian Army officer Col Sofiya Qureshi , saying he is testing the court's patience. A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the conduct of the minister was making the court doubt his intentions and bonafide. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category PGDM CXO healthcare Data Science Data Analytics Cybersecurity Technology Degree Others Artificial Intelligence Management Leadership Project Management Data Science MBA Design Thinking MCA Public Policy Finance Digital Marketing others Product Management Skills you'll gain: Financial Analysis & Decision Making Quantitative & Analytical Skills Organizational Management & Leadership Innovation & Entrepreneurship Duration: 24 Months IMI Delhi Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Online) Starts on Sep 1, 2024 Get Details Senior advocate K Parmeshwar, appearing for Shah, said he had issued a public apology, which was online, and would be placed on court's record. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now The bench asked the special investigation team (SIT) constituted to probe the statements made by the minister to submit its report by August 13. The top court noted 87 people were examined by the probe team, which was currently examining the statements. Live Events The bench also refused to examine a plea filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur seeking Shah's resignation but said some of the allegations made in the writ petition about the past instances would be looked into by the three-member SIT. The top court posted the hearing for August 18. The SIT constituted by the Madhya Pradesh government was in compliance with the top court's order. On May 19, the top court chided Shah and constituted the SIT to probe the FIR lodged against him. Shah came under fire after a video, which was circulated widely, showed him allegedly making objectionable remarks against Col Qureshi, who gained nationwide prominence along with another woman officer, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, during the media briefings on Operation Sindoor . The Madhya Pradesh High Court rebuked Shah for passing "scurrilous" remarks and using "language of the gutters" against Col Qureshi, and ordered police to file an FIR against him on the charge of promoting enmity and hatred. After drawing severe condemnation, Shah expressed regret and said that he respects Col Qureshi more than his sister.
