SC refuses urgent listing of plea for FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma in cash row
The Supreme Court declined to urgently hear a plea seeking an FIR against Allahabad High Court's Justice Yashwant Varma concerning a cash discovery controversy. The petitioners, led by Mathews Nedumpara, are pushing for criminal proceedings following an in-house inquiry that allegedly found the allegations against Justice Varma to be prima facie true. The court advised following the standard mentioning procedure.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to list for urgent hearing a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against the Allahabad High Court 's Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash discovery row . A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih asked lawyer and petitioner Mathews Nedumpara to follow the mentioning procedure."Please go through the mentioning procedure," the CJI said.Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna had said no to oral mentioning for urgent listing and hearing of cases and said that the lawyers or the litigants will have to write an email and move the apex court registry first.After an in-house inquiry panel indicted the judge, the former CJI had nudged Justice Varma to resign. The ex-CJI wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi after Justice Varma refused to resign.The petition, filed by Nedumpara and three others, called for immediate initiation of criminal proceedings, saying the in-house committee found the allegations against Justice Varma to be prima facie true.The plea emphasised that while the internal inquiry might lead to judicial disciplinary action , it was no substitute for a criminal investigation under the applicable statutes.In March, the same petitioners had approached the apex court, challenging the in-house inquiry and demanding a formal police investigation.However, the top court had then dismissed the plea as premature, citing the pending nature of the internal proceedings.With the inquiry now concluded, the petitioners asserted that a delay in criminal action was no longer tenable.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Advocate ‘warns of' taking HC judges to Supreme Court, issued contempt notice
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued contempt notice against an advocate, Ravneet Kaur, form making 'scandalous remarks' and 'per se contemptuous' allegations against the sitting high court judges and a trial court judge in her application seeking early hearing her pending case. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dictating the order in open court, took a stern view of the language used in Ravneet Kaur's plea, and held that it not only cast aspersions on the integrity of the judicial system but also attempted to browbeat the judges entrusted with the adjudication of her matter. 'The reckless allegations made by the petitioner were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system. The act of the petitioner is an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority which prima facie amounts to interference in the judicial process,' the judge observed while issuing a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the petitioner advocate. Ravneet Kaur, who argued her case in person, had moved an application seeking advancement of the hearing in her main petition that is listed for October 31. In her plea, she claimed she was being harassed by the deliberate delay in her matter and warned that if it was not taken up 'at the earliest date' she would be 'left with only option to implead Justice Sh. Sandeep Moudgill, Justice Sh. Harpreet Singh Brar and Sh. Baljinder Singh ASJ (Additional Sessions Judge) as party to file SLP (Special Leave Petition) before Hon'ble Supreme Court… because deliberately and intentionally justice has been denied… delaying the present applications and main petition just to cause harassment… to put the petitioner under pressure to withdraw the present complaints against IPS Gurpreet Singh Bhullar'. The court reproduced the statement in full in its order and held that such 'scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism' could not be justified. 'Not only has she failed to indicate how she has been intentionally victimized in the matter at hand, she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism… the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous,' Justice Brar said. The judge noted that Ravneet Kaur, 'not a layperson but a qualified Advocate', could not claim her 'unceremonious behaviour stemmed out of lack of knowledge.' Citing a Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in M.Y. Shareef vs Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (1955 SCR 757), he reiterated that 'counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court… are themselves guilty of contempt of Court… his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.' The court also traced the listing history of the main case. It was consistently heard since May 29, 2024, before another bench, which later recused on May 26, 2025. The matter then came before Justice Brar on May 29, when it was adjourned at the petitioner's request. It was heard by the Vacation Bench on June 6 and June 18 and was again listed on July 14 but could not be taken up because of a 'heavy cause list of 191 cases inclusive of matters listed specially under the Mediation of Nation Drive.' On July 22, when around 245 cases were listed, Ravneet Kaur pressed for an early hearing, but the bench found 'no justifiable reasons' to grant her prayer. The court even offered her the assistance of the High Court Legal Aid Services, which she declined. Issuing the contempt notice, the bench said the allegations amounted to 'an unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the courts' that 'undermines the dignity of the rule of law' and 'have the potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system which would inevitably shake the faith of the public in the institution.' While refusing to advance the hearing to an earlier date, the court, 'in the interest of justice', listed the main petition for August 29.
NDTV
42 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Mistake...": Maharashtra Goes To Top Court Against Train Blasts Acquittals
The Maharashtra government has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging yesterday's Bombay High Court's decision to acquit 12 persons who were accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts. The plea was mentioned on Tuesday before a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai by Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, who requested that the plea be taken up urgently by the top court. The Court listed the matter for hearing on Thursday. Nineteen years after seven train blasts that killed more than 180 persons, the high court on Monday acquitted all the 12 accused, saying the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case and it was "hard to believe the accused committed the crime". The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), said the high court, failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. The high court set aside a September 2015 judgment of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) court that had imposed the death penalty on 5 of the 12 accused persons and had sentenced the remaining 7 to life. In its damning indictment of the prosecution's case, the high court declared all confessional statements of the accused as inadmissible and suggested "copying". The Maharashtra government argued in its petition that the high court has recorded a "very peculiar observation in disbelieving the confession" of the fifth accused. The government has called it a mistake to not trust the important evidence on the recovery of RDX and detonator. "The High Court has disbelieved the recovery of 500 gms of RDX from Accused No 1on a hyper technical ground that the RDX which was seized was not sealed with a lac seal. It is worth noting that it was not sealed with Lac because RDX is a flammable high court has erred in disbelieving the recovery of RDX," said the government in its petition. Investigators said the bombs, made of RDX and ammonium nitrate, were placed inside pressure cookers and concealed in bags. The attacks were attributed to Pakistan-backed Islamic militants. The High Court, argued the state government, has committed a grave error in not accepting the arguments advanced by the trial court for sentencing the accused. "It has erred in acquitting the accused of all the charges including the UAPA," it said. The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) filed charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The prosecution relied heavily on confessions, alleged recoveries, and circumstantial evidence - none of which stood up under the high court's scrutiny. "It is necessary to see that the accused were continuously engaged in activities prohibited by law, which are cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or more and in respect of which more than one charge sheet has to be filed in the competent court within the preceding period of 10 years and which have been tried by the competent court cognizance should have been taken," it said. Former Mumbai police commissioner A N Roy today expressed shock over the high court's acquittal of all 12 accused in the case, saying the probe into the case was conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in a professional manner where evidence was collected "honestly and truthfully". On the evening of July 11, 2006, bomb blasts took place at seven different places in the Mumbai local trains within just 11 minutes. In this incident, 189 people died, while more than 827 passengers were injured. The bombs were placed in first-class compartments of trains from Churchgate. They exploded near the stations of Matunga Road, Mahim Junction, Bandra, Khar, Jogeshwari, Bhayandar, and Borivali. A trial court in 2015 convicted 12 people in the blasts' case.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Was Jagdeep Dhankhar's resignation voluntary or forced? Experts debate on Rajdeep Sardesai's show
In this episode of News Today, the focus is on the unexpected resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who cited health reasons for stepping down two years before his term's end. The move has ignited a political controversy, with speculation that his decision to admit an opposition-backed impeachment motion notice against Justice Yashwant Varma led to a fallout with the Modi government. The opposition has questioned the circumstances of the resignation, which came on the first day of the Monsoon session. So, was Jagdeep Dhankhar's resignation voluntary or was he eased out? Watch as panellists debate this and more on Rajdeep Sardesai's show.
