Latest news with #JudgesInquiryAct
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
With process to remove Justice Yashwant Varma now likely in Parliament, how impeachment works
The process to remove former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, whose official residence in New Delhi was allegedly found to have wads of currency notes in March, will soon be initiated in the Lok Sabha. The Indian Express has learned that Speaker Om Birla could announce a statutory committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal has been sought. Birla and Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh met on Wednesday (July 23) with officials of both houses to discuss the procedure, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah also joining them. The presiding officers will have to consult the Chief Justice of India for finalising the names, as the statutory committee should have one judge each from the Supreme Court and the High Courts. On the same day, the Supreme Court said it will set up a bench to hear Justice Varma's plea challenging the legal validity of the judiciary's in-house inquiry committee, which confirmed charges of recovery of unaccounted cash. Justice Varma called it 'a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism'. The developments also follow Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's surprise resignation on Monday evening. As The Indian Express reported Tuesday, it came hours after his decision, as the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, to accept the Opposition's notice on the removal of Justice Varma. Sources said the government believed that the move upstaged its own initiative to bring in such a notice. The procedure for the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge is laid down under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, and Article 218 says the same provisions shall also apply to a judge of the High Court. Under Article 124(4), a judge can be removed by Parliament through a laid-down procedure on only two grounds: 'proved misbehaviour' and 'incapacity'. For an impeachment motion to be accepted, at least two-thirds of those 'present and voting' in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must vote in favour of removing the judge, and the number of votes in favour must be more than 50% of the 'total membership' of each House. If Parliament passes such a vote, the President will pass an order for the removal of the judge. The detailed procedure for the impeachment of a judge is laid down in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. Under Section 3, for a motion of impeachment to be taken up, it has to be moved by not less than 100 members in the Lok Sabha, and at least 50 members in the Rajya Sabha. This collection of signatures is the first step. There is no time limit for the Speaker/ Chairman to act on the motion, and they can either admit it or refuse to do so. If admitted, a three-member committee of inquiry must be constituted as soon as may be. The committee is headed by the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court, and has a Chief Justice of any High Court, and a person who is, in the opinion of the Speaker/ Chairman, a 'distinguished jurist'. The committee frames the charges, and can seek a medical test for the judge if the impeachment charge is grounds of mental incapacity. The committee has the power to regulate its procedure, call for evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. The committee will then submit a report to the Speaker/ Chairman with its findings. The Speaker/ Chairman will place the report before Lok Sabha/ Rajya Sabha 'as soon as may be'. If the report finds that the judge is not guilty, the matter will end there. In case of a guilty finding, the report of the committee is adopted by the House in which it was introduced, and then an address is made to the President by each House of Parliament in the same session, seeking the judge's removal. A motion will be put to a vote, and once the process is over, the same will be repeated in the other house. The impeachment process differs from the internal inquiry within the judiciary. The need for an internal mechanism within the judiciary was felt in 1995, after allegations of financial impropriety surfaced against then Bombay High Court Chief Justice A M Bhattacharjee. After the Bombay Bar Association moved a resolution calling for the judge's resignation, a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the Bar. While hearing the case, Justices K Ramaswamy and B L Hansaria of the SC noted the 'hiatus between bad behaviour and impeachable misbehaviour' (C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee). The SC noted there was no process to hold a judge accountable for 'bad conduct inconsistent with the high office', when such conduct did not meet the high bar of impeachment set by Article 124 of the Constitution. Thus, to address such issues, the SC constituted a five-member committee comprising the senior-most HC Chief Justices at the time, to devise the procedure 'for taking suitable remedial action against judges, who by their acts of omission or commission, do not follow the accepted values of judicial life…' The committee submitted its report in October 1997. It was adopted with amendments in a full court meeting of the SC in December 1999. Process revisited in 2014 In 2014, when a woman additional district and sessions judge from Madhya Pradesh filed a complaint of sexual harassment against a sitting judge of the High Court, the SC revisited its in-house procedure. Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra summarised and explained this process through 'seven steps' (Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' v. Registrar General High Court of Madhya Pradesh). Essentially, this process begins when the Chief Justice of a HC, the CJI, or the President of India receives a complaint. The CJ of the HC or the President will forward the complaint to the CJI. This complaint can be dropped at any stage, if not found serious enough by the CJI. However, to test its veracity, the CJI can seek a preliminary report from the CJ of the HC concerned. If the CJ recommends that a 'deeper probe' is warranted, the CJI may examine the recommendation and the statement of the judge facing the accusations. A three-member inquiry, comprising two other HC Chief Justices and one HC judge, can be ordered. This committee has the power to devise its own procedure 'consistent with the rules of natural justice', such as hearing both sides in a case. Once the inquiry has been concluded, the committee will submit its report to the CJI. This report must state whether: If the report finds there is substance to the allegations, it will be sent to the judge concerned as well. If the committee concludes that the misconduct is not serious enough to warrant removal proceedings, the CJI may 'advise' the judge concerned and direct that the committee's report be placed on record. If the committee decides that the allegations are serious enough to initiate removal proceedings, the CJI will advise the concerned judge to resign or retire voluntarily. If the judge does not accept, the CJI will direct the HC Chief Justice not to assign any judicial work to said judge. In Justice Varma's situation, then CJI Sanjiv Khanna asked Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma. Further, the CJI will inform the President and the Prime Minister of the committee's finding that removal proceedings should be initiated. In June, it was learnt that the inquiry committee in Justice Varma's case spoke of 'implied responsibility' on the part of the judge in the recovery of cash, and held him responsible for 'misconduct'. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More Have been in journalism covering national politics for 23 years. Have covered six consecutive Lok Sabha elections and assembly polls in almost all the states. Currently writes on ruling BJP. Always loves to understand what's cooking in the national politics (And ventures into the act only in kitchen at home). ... Read More
India Today
a day ago
- Politics
- India Today
What happens if both Houses pass motion for removal of judge on same day?
On the opening day of the Monsoon Session, members of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha submitted notices seeking the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, prompting the initiation of a constitutionally mandated inquiry process into the Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, who has since resigned, acknowledged receipt of the notice in the Upper House, thereby setting in motion the process under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. Justice Varma came under scrutiny after large bundles of burnt currency notes were discovered at his residence in Delhi in March this Judges Inquiry Act lays out the process for investigating allegations against a sitting judge. A notice for removal must be signed by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 in the Rajya Sabha. In this instance, the motion was submitted in both Houses on the same day — a procedural requirement for joint action under the Act. Under Section 3 of the Act, the presiding officers — the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha — must first consult relevant authorities before admitting the motion. If admitted by both Houses, they are then required to jointly constitute a three-member inquiry committee will include a Supreme Court judge (who may also be the Chief Justice of India), a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. The committee is tasked with framing definite charges and presenting them to the judge. Justice Varma will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond in cases alleging incapacity, the judge may be directed to undergo a medical examination. The central government may also be asked to appoint an advocate to conduct the case against the judge if requested by the presiding completing its inquiry, the committee must submit a detailed report with findings on each charge. This report is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament at the earliest possible simultaneous submission of notices in both Houses ensures that the process moves forward under strict constitutional guidelines. If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, and both Houses adopt the motion for removal by a two-thirds majority, the President may remove the judge.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Jagdeep Dhankhar accepting Opposition notice to impeach Justice Varma rubbed Govt ‘wrong way'
With no word from the government on the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar, barring an acknowledgement by Prime Minister Narendra Modi Tuesday noon, what precipitated his sudden move is being attributed to two signature-collection drives to move a motion to impeach Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma for the alleged cash found in his premises. The first of these was by the Opposition which started two weeks ago but picked up momentum Sunday, to collect at least 50 signatures – the minimum needed to move a motion in the Rajya Sabha – to initiate the removal of Justice Varma. The government saw this as a move by the Opposition to undercut its own motion in this regard in the Lok Sabha, for which it had collected 145 signatures – the minimum for Lok Sabha is 100 – including those of the Opposition. Incidentally, in the run-up to the monsoon session, the Government had made it clear that it would move a motion to impeach the judge. The Modi government hoped that the removal of Justice Varma then would be by 'consensus' and not seen as partisan. (The motion to remove a judge can be initiated in either House.) An Opposition MP told The Indian Express that they were, however, determined to keep NDA members out of their Rajya Sabha initiative, to ensure that the ruling coalition didn't walk away with the anti-corruption plank on the matter. 'We did not want the government to have the moral high ground on the issue,' the MP said. Opposition sources said another reason was that they also wanted to raise the issue of Justice Shekhar Yadav, whose removal has been sought for controversial remarks at a VHP event, along with that of Justice Varma. As Monday morning came, and the Monsoon Session began, the Opposition was still trying to muster enough signatures to give a notice for the removal of Justice Varma. Around 1 pm, Dhankhar held a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) to decide the time and nature of discussions to be held in the Rajya Sabha. The meeting was inconclusive, with the Opposition seeking more time to decide on the government's suggestions. Dhankhar then said that another BAC meeting would be held later in the day, at 4.30 pm. By 3 pm, the Opposition submitted its notice for removal of Justice Varma to Dhankhar. At 3.12 pm, Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh tweeted: 'Today 63 Rajya Sabha MPs belonging to various Opposition parties submitted a notice of motion to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. A similar motion for the removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav had been submitted to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, way back on Dec 13, 2024.' According to sources, the government was not too happy about Dhankhar accepting the motion, upstaging its own initiative in the Rajya Sabha. A frantic exercise began allegedly then to rustle up signatures of NDA MPs. There was confusion about the purpose of the move. Several BJP MPs told The Indian Express that the signatures were taken for 'impeachment' of Justice Varma. However, two of their counterparts from the NDA underlined that they had signed on 'blank papers', suggesting that the intention was not clear. Three Cabinet members told The Indian Express that the signatures were meant for a notice against Justice Varma. A minister added that the proceedings, however, 'will be in the Lok Sabha only'. 'But since the Chair (Dhankhar) has taken up the matter in the Rajya Sabha also, the presiding officers of both will form a three-member committee to probe the matter.' Shortly after the Opposition submitted its notice, Dhankhar came to the Rajya Sabha and announced around 4.05 pm Monday that he had received it. 'A notice of motion under Article 271 (1) (b), read with Article 218 and Article 124, sub article 4 of the Constitution of India, along with Section 3 (1B) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to constitute a statutory committee for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad' had been submitted, the Vice President said. Dhankhar added that according to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when notices of a motion are submitted on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, a committee to examine the charges is to be constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman together. Incidentally, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is yet to inform the House about the Justice Varma notice. So this move from Dhankhar, sources in the BJP said, was 'unexpected, shocking and confusing'. A top source in the government said: 'He did not even wait for our notice on the matter.' Interestingly, Dhankhar went on to also refer to the Opposition notice on removal of Justice Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. Without mentioning Justice Yadav by name, Dhankhar said that the confusion over the signatures in the notice submitted by the Opposition was the reason for the hold-up in the process, initiated in December. He added that he would get back to the House once the probe in the case was completed. This did not go down well with the government either, which has been trying to go easy on the Justice Yadav matter. Dhankhar then mentioned the case of the discovery of a wad of notes in the Rajya Sabha in February last year, allegedly from a seat belonging to MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Calling it a serious matter, Dhankhar said the matter would have to be dealt with, and that the floor leaders would have to help him in this. Around half-an-hour later, Dhankhar started the BAC meeting he had announced earlier in the day. But even as the Opposition came for it, no one from the government side – either J P Nadda, the Leader of the House, or Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and MoS, Parliamentary Affairs, Arjun Ram Meghwal – turned up. On Tuesday, speaking to journalists at Parliament House, Nadda said Rijiju and he had informed Dhankhar in advance that they would not be able to attend the meeting as they had another engagement. A source from the government said: 'After we informed the Chairman that the ministers would not be able to be present, he said he would wait for some time and carry on with the meeting.' Nadda also gave a clarification regarding his remarks 'Nothing will go on record, only what I say will go on record' in the Rajya Sabha on Monday, saying these were directed at the 'interrupting' Opposition MPs and not the Chair. After Dhankhar's resignation, the Congress had cited this 'insult' to the Vice President as one of the reasons behind his sudden move. On Tuesday, Congress leader Ramesh speculated in a post on X that 'something very serious' occurred between 1 pm and 4.30 pm, which prompted Nadda and Rijiju to skip the BAC 'deliberately', and said Dhankhar had taken 'umbrage' at this. Six hours after government representatives did not turn up for the BAC meeting, at 9.25 pm Monday, Dhankar posted his resignation letter addressed to President Droupadi Murmu on the official X handle of the Vice President, saying he was stepping down due to medical reasons. The first official reaction from the BJP or the government was at 12.13 pm Tuesday, when PM Modi tweeted: 'Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar Ji has got many opportunities to serve our country in various capacities, including as the Vice President of India. Wishing him good health.'
NDTV
3 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
What Next in Impeachment Process For Judge Caught In Cash-At-Home Row
New Delhi: The process of impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma - the former Delhi High Court judge at whose home "piles of burnt Rs 500 notes" were found - having started in parliament with a memorandum signed by 145 MPs, Speaker Om Birla is expected to carry the ball further tomorrow, by forming an inquiry committee. The committee is expected to include a serving judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of a High Court and a reputed jurist. The report of the committee - which is expected to investigate the allegations against Justice Varma - is likely to come during the winter session of parliament. After this, the process of investigation and hearing will start. The committee is expected to lay down the allegations and a copy of it will be given to the judge, who will also be given a chance to respond in writing. After this, there could be an interrogation or cross-examination of witnesses in the matter, following which the committee will present its conclusions in parliament. The committee's report will be discussed in both houses and Justice Verma will be given a chance to present his side. This would be followed by the actual process of voting for impeachment in both houses of parliament. To carry out the impeachment, either a simple majority of the total number of members or a two-thirds majority of those present and voting will be required. A go ahead from both houses is needed after which the President issues an order to remove the judge. The complicated process of impeachment is part of the reason why no judge has been impeached in Independent India. On most of the five cases that came close, the judges had resigned before the proceedings had reached the final phase. Justice Yashwant Varma had come under scrutiny after a fire broke out at his official residence on March 14 and wads of half-burnt cash were found. It had caused a furore, and though Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing, questions were raised about the judiciary. In view of the row, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had initiated an in-house inquiry. A three-judge panel was appointed to conduct an investigation. After the committee confirmed the presence of cash at Justice Varma's residence and submitted its report to the CJI, Justice Khanna sent the findings to the Prime Minister and the President, recommending initiation of removal proceedings as per the Judges Inquiry Act and Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
Economic Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Cash discovery row: 63 opposition MPs submit notice in RS for removal of Justice Varma
Agencies High court judge Yashwant Varma (File Photo) Sixty-three opposition MPs on Monday gave a notice in the Rajya Sabha to move a motion for the removal of high court judge Yashwant Varma from whose residence burnt wads of currency notes were found following a fire incident in March. Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain said the notice has been submitted to Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar. A similar notice for moving a motion to remove Justice Varma has been submitted by ruling BJP and opposition members in the Lok Sabha. Hussain said, "63 opposition MPs, including those from AAP and INDIA bloc parties, have given a notice to the Rajya Sabha Chairman for removal of Justice Varma." Although TMC members were not present today, they are on board on the issue and will submit their signatures later, he said. A motion for the removal of a judge has to be signed by not less than 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. The motion can either be accepted or rejected by the Speaker/Chairman of the House. If the motion is admitted, the Speaker or the Chairman of the House forms a three-member committee in accordance with the Judges Inquiry Act. The committee comprising a senior judge of the Supreme Court, a sitting Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished jurist will then probe the charges levelled against Justice Varma and come out with a report in three months. The inquiry report will be tabled in Parliament followed by a discussion in both Houses, after which there will be voting on the motion for removal of Justice Varma. Though Justice Varma has denied any wrongdoing, a Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry panel has concluded that the judge and his family members had covert or active control over the storeroom, where the cash was found, proving his misconduct serious enough to seek his removal.
