Latest news with #JudgesInquiryAct
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
This plea shouldn't have been filed: SC to Varma
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday told Justice Yashwant Varma, facing removal motion in LS for discovery of sacks of currency notes at his residence premises on March 14 night, that he should not have filed the petition challenging the procedure adopted by the in-house committee after participating in it. As senior advocate Kapil Sibal , appearing for Justice Varma, began his arguments asserting it is 'matters of moment', a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said "It is a matter of moment only for the benefit of lawyers who are involved in this petition. This petition must not have been filed." Sibal took the bench through several SC rulings that barred discussion in public and in Parliament of alleged misconduct of a judge prior to the debate on removal motion. He said by uploading video of burning currency notes and communications between the then CJI and Delhi HC CJ (related to Justice Varma's explanations) on the SC website, the petitioner has been vilified, subjected to media trial & pronounced guilty without an inquiry. While arguing against 'public debate and media trial' over Justice Varma, who has identified himself as 'XXX' in his petition before the SC, Sibal and other MPs have gone public on Allahabad HC's Justice Shekhar Yadav's remark and have signed a notice of motion in RS seeking his removal. Constitutional matter politicised, says Sibal While arguing against 'public debate and media trial' over Justice Yashwant Varma, who has identified himself as 'XXX' in his petition before Supreme court, his counsel Kapil Sibal and other MPs have gone public on Allahabad HC's Justice Shekhar Yadav's controversial remark and have signed a notice of motion in Rajya Sabha seeking his removal. Senior advocate Sibal said politics has been introduced into a purely constitutional matter by sending inquiry report by the then CJI to the President and PM with a recommendation to initiate removal motion against the judge. Justice Datta-led bench asked, "President is the appointing authority, and PM is the head of the executive on whose advice the President acts. Sending the report to them does not mean it amounted to influencing Parliament, where the process is independent of the in-house inquiry report. " Sibal said, "How could the in-house inquiry committee conclude that it was a misbehaviour on my part when the cash was found in the outhouse? The committee did not find that the cash belonged to the judge. The judge's staff who were there were not told that the cash was found. The entire procedure of in-house inquiry was flawed and hence the report should be quashed." Justice Datta said, "What is the worth of the in-house inquiry report. It is not going to be treated as evidence by the inquiry panel to be set up (by Lok Sabha Speaker) under the Judges Inquiry Act. What are you aggrieved by? If you are aggrieved by the procedure adopted by the in-house committee, why did you participate in its proceedings?" "You are a constitutional authority well versed with the in-house procedure. You could have moved the SC challenging the setting up of the committee or even sought removal of the videos and communications from the SC website. Why did you not do that," the bench said and asked as to why the judge in his petition has not attached the inquiry committee report. The bench adjourned hearing a writ petition by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who has sought a direction to the Delhi police to register an FIR against Justice Varma for the discovery of unaccounted cash in his official residence premises during a minor fire incident. "We would like to read the report. You file it. We will take up the matter on Wednesday," said the bench.
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why did Justice Varma submit to in-house inquiry if it was contrary to Constitution, Supreme Court asks
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) questioned High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's choice to submit to an in-house inquiry procedure into an allegation of 'burnt cash' found at his official residential premises in Delhi, despite finding the procedure to be 'completely contrary to the Constitutional scheme'. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih asked whether he was at the time looking for a favourable outcome. Supreme Court hearing on Justice Varma's petition updates: SC asks Sibal to place on record the fact-finding committee report, adjourns case to July 30 The query came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal complained that the action taken by the Supreme Court at the time, including release of sensitive visual and audio materials showing 'burnt currency', 'convicted' Justice Varma in the public eye. 'There was a public furore, media interactions named the judge, accusations were levelled against the judge and the findings of the inquiry committee found its way into the public domain. He was convicted in the public eye from day one,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal said the process of removal of a judge was covered under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The inquiry had to be done under the Judges Inquiry Act. The in-house procedure was meant to 'enhance' the moral vigour of the judiciary and depicted zero tolerance to judicial misconduct. 'Violation of Article 121' The senior counsel said the outing of sensitive material regarding a sitting High Court judge and very public discussions on his conduct violated the bar under Article 121 of the Constitution. 'Article 121 restricts discussions even in the Parliament on a sitting judge unless there is evidence of proven misconduct against him… Here, he was already 'convicted' in the public eye. The in-house inquiry procedure was devised to enhance the moral authority of the judiciary. The conduct of the in-house inquiry and its report, now in the public domain, hardly meet that objective,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal challenged the inquiry committee's finding of misbehaviour against Justice Varma. 'If cash is found in an outhouse, what is the behaviour of the judge to do with it… There is no 'behaviour' or 'misbehaviour' involved. They have to prove the cash belonged to him. They never found that… There could never have been a recommendation for my [read Justice Varma's] removal,' Mr. Sibal argued. 'Political overtones' The counsel said the issue of 'removal' of the judge has taken on political overtones. 'But removal is also a political procedure,' Justice Datta observed. 'Yes, inside the Parliament, not outside,' Mr. Sibal responded. 'You could have raised these points immediately, without submitting to the committee's jurisdiction… why did you not?' Justice Datta asked. Mr. Sibal contended that the decision of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) in May to forward the committee report and recommendation for the removal of Justice Varma was 'illegal'. 'Why do you think sending it to the President, who is the appointing authority of the judge, illegal? And what is wrong in sending it to the Prime Minister? He is the leader of the Council of Ministers. His advice is taken at the time of appointment of judges. Sending it to the President or the Prime Minister does not mean the Chief Justice is trying to impress or persuade the House to accept his point of view,' Justice Datta responded. The court listed the case on July 30, directing Mr. Sibal to place the inquiry committee's report on record.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Judge Varma hides identity, is ‘XXX' in his SC petition
Judge Varma hides identity, is 'XXX' in his SC petition NEW DELHI: Facing removal motion in Parliament for sacks of cash found at his official residence in Delhi, Justice Yashwant Varma has kept his identity a secret in his petition in the Supreme Court while seeking quashing of the in-house inquiry report and then CJI's recommendation for stripping him of judgeship. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih is scheduled to hear his petition on Monday. In the petition, his name is described as "XXX". Such camouflage is used in records of SC and HCs to hide the identity of petitioner women who were sexually harassed or assaulted. It is also used to prevent revealing the identity of juveniles, and minors in matrimonial custody battles. SC has in many judgments asked all courts not to reveal the names of rape survivors in judgments. LS Speaker may write to CJI this week for panel members' names Justice Varma's plea - titled "XXX vs Union of India" - is the 699th civil writ petition filed in SC this year. While the Centre is the first respondent, SC itself is the second respondent. It was filed on July 17, and after the advocate on record rectified defects pointed out by the registry, SC registered the petition on July 24. Interestingly, while the petition "XXX vs Union of India" is listed at serial number 56 before the bench headed by Justice Datta, another petition by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, seeking registration of FIR against Justice Varma to unravel the mystery behind the cash, its burning and subsequent disappearance, is listed at serial number 59 before the same bench on Monday. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Flights, Rentals & Accommodations Hotel Deals | Search Ads Browse Now Undo Meanwhile, Lok Sabha has admitted a notice for removal against Justice Varma signed by more than 150 MPs. The LS speaker is likely to write this week to CJI B R Gavai seeking names of an SC judge and an HC chief justice, who would be part of an inquiry committee under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. The speaker will nominate a distinguished jurist to complete the composition of the three-member committee headed by the SC judge. Repatriated to the Allahabad HC from the Delhi HC after the 'cash-in-kothi' controversy, Justice Varma in his petition has challenged the validity of the in-house inquiry report finding him guilty of the unaccounted cash at his residential premises and requested SC to declare the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna's May 8 recommendation to the President and the PM for his removal as unconstitutional.
Scroll.in
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Lok Sabha to take up removal motion against Justice Yashwant Varma: Centre
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Friday said that the Lok Sabha will take up a bipartisan motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma, The Hindu reported. The minister added that the decision to impeach the High Court judge was unanimous and that 152 MPs from the ruling coalition and the Opposition parties had signed the motion. There is consensus that the removal of Varma should be a joint effort, The Hindu quoted Rijiju as saying. He said that the Lok Sabha will take up the proceedings before they move to the Rajya Sabha in line with the Judges Inquiry Act. The minister's comment came amid a motion sponsored by the Opposition being moved in the Upper House on July 21, which was the first day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. The process had been initiated in the Lok Sabha on the same day, The Hindu reported. The notice in the Rajya Sabha has not been admitted, the newspaper quoted unidentified officials as saying. To impeach a judge in Parliament, a removal motion is required to be signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If the motion is admitted, a three-member judicial committee investigates the matter. The Parliament votes on the impeachment if the committee finds misconduct. If the motion gets two-thirds of the votes, the president is advised to remove the judge. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is expected to constitute the panel to probe the charges against Varma. Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered at Varma's official residence in Delhi when emergency services responded to a fire there on March 14. He was a judge at the Delhi High Court at that time. The judge said that he was in Bhopal when the cash was discovered and claimed that it did not belong to him or his family. Amid the row, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On March 22, the Supreme Court released a report, including a video and three photographs, showing bundles of notes that were allegedly recovered from the judge's home. The redacted report showed that Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya had written to Varma on March 21, asking him to 'account for the presence of money/cash' in a room located in his bungalow. After Varma declined to voluntarily retire or resign, Sanjiv Khanna, the chief justice at the time, sent the final in-house inquiry committee report on the incident to the president and the prime minister. The committee in its report had concluded that there was 'sufficient substance' in the charges against Varma. The report, dated May 3, held that the judge's misconduct was 'serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal'. However, the report did not address questions about how the fire started, how much money was found, where the cash came from or where it is now. On July 18, Varma moved the Supreme Court against the in-house panel's findings, arguing that it creates a 'parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism' and undermines the procedure laid out in law, which vests the power to remove High Court judges in Parliament. Varma also challenged the recommendation made by Khanna to the president and the prime minister to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
India Today
4 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Explained: How Vice President of India is elected
In this episode of India Today Explains, Akshita Nandagopal breaks down the week's biggest stories. The programme covers Jagdeep Dhankhar's abrupt resignation as Vice President on July 21st for health reasons, creating a rare mid-term vacancy. It details the process for electing a new Vice President. The show also explores the impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma, explaining the steps involved as per the Judges Inquiry Act. Further, it analyses the landmark India-UK free trade agreement, the retirement of the MiG-21 fighter jet after 60 years, and the controversy surrounding the Epstein files.
