Latest news with #RanjanGogoi
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Parl panel asks why no FIR lodged over cash found at Justice Varma's house
Several MPs at a Parliamentary panel meeting on Tuesday asked why no FIR has been lodged over the recovery of unaccounted cash from a high court judge's residence here and told the Department of Justice to prepare a detailed note on the matter, sources said. The MPs also demanded a code of conduct for judges, and justices in the higher judiciary should not take up government assignments till a period of five years post-retirement, they said. During a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, MPs of various parties raised the issue and posed several questions to the Ministry of Law and Justice on what it was doing in the matters raised concerning the judiciary. Sources said the secretary in the Department of Justice, who made a presentation on 'Judicial processes and their reform' concerning issues of Code of Conduct for the judges of higher judiciary and taking up post-retirement assignments by judges", was asked to prepare a comprehensive report on the issues raised and told to present it at the next panel meeting. They add that the members also sought a comprehensive bill addressing various issues and concerns on ethics and code of conduct of judges which were raised by them during the meeting. The MPs sought to know why no action had been taken on the matter concerning the recovery of unaccounted cash from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma and demanded a code of conduct should be in place. Some MPs also asked why no motion to remove Justice Varma has been moved so far. Sources said some demanded that justice should be equitable since a government employee may lose his/her job over a small corruption issue but no action has been initiated against a senior member of the judiciary even after the recovery of unaccounted cash. MPs of several parties also demanded that the government should have brought a motion by now to remove the judge concerned, especially after a Supreme Court-appointed committee of judges found the recovery of cash to be true. After the cash recovery, Justice Varma was repatriated to his parent court -- the Allahabad High Court. He has denied the charges against him. The MPs also deliberated upon post-retirement assignments of judges and said they should not get such appointments till a period of five years after their retirement. Some MPs also said that former judges should not be appointed as MPs or to any other assignments by the President of India immediately post-retirement. The committee of the Rajya Sabha is headed by BJP MP Brij Lal and has former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who is a nominated MP, former minister of state for law P P Chaudhary, TMC MPs Sukhendu Sekhar Ray and Kalyan Banerjee, Congress's Vivek Tankha, and DMK's P Wilson and A Raja as its key members. Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi did not attend Tuesday's meeting.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Parliamentary panel asks why no FIR lodged in recovery of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma's house
Several MPs at a Parliamentary panel meeting on Tuesday asked why no FIR has been lodged over the recovery of unaccounted cash from a high court judge's residence here and told the Department of Justice to prepare a detailed note on the matter, sources said. The MPs also demanded a code of conduct for judges , and justices in the higher judiciary should not take up government assignments till a period of five years post-retirement, they said. During a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, MPs of various parties raised the issue and posed several questions to the Ministry of Law and Justice on what it was doing in the matters raised concerning the judiciary. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Sources said the secretary in the Department of Justice, who made a presentation on 'Judicial processes and their reform' concerning issues of Code of Conduct for the judges of higher judiciary and taking up post-retirement assignments by judges", was asked to prepare a comprehensive report on the issues raised and told to present it at the next panel meeting. They add that the members also sought a comprehensive bill addressing various issues and concerns on ethics and code of conduct of judges which were raised by them during the meeting. Live Events The MPs sought to know why no action had been taken on the matter concerning the recovery of unaccounted cash from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma and demanded a code of conduct should be in place. Some MPs also asked why no motion to remove Justice Varma has been moved so far. Sources said some demanded that justice should be equitable since a government employee may lose his/her job over a small corruption issue but no action has been initiated against a senior member of the judiciary even after the recovery of unaccounted cash. MPs of several parties also demanded that the government should have brought a motion by now to remove the judge concerned, especially after a Supreme Court-appointed committee of judges found the recovery of cash to be true. After the cash recovery, Justice Varma was repatriated to his parent court -- the Allahabad High Court. He has denied the charges against him. The MPs also deliberated upon post-retirement assignments of judges and said they should not get such appointments till a period of five years after their retirement. Some MPs also said that former judges should not be appointed as MPs or to any other assignments by the President of India immediately post-retirement. The committee of the Rajya Sabha is headed by BJP MP Brij Lal and has former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who is a nominated MP, former minister of state for law P P Chaudhary, TMC MPs Sukhendu Sekhar Ray and Kalyan Banerjee, Congress's Vivek Tankha, and DMK's P Wilson and A Raja as its key members. Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi did not attend Tuesday's meeting.
The Print
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
Parliamentary panel asks why no FIR lodged in recovery of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma's house
During a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, MPs of various parties raised the issue and posed several questions to the Ministry of Law and Justice on what it was doing in the matters raised concerning the judiciary. The MPs also demanded a code of conduct for judges, and justices in the higher judiciary should not take up government assignments till a period of five years post-retirement, they said. New Delhi, Jun 24 (PTI) Several MPs at a Parliamentary panel meeting on Tuesday asked why no FIR has been lodged over the recovery of unaccounted cash from a high court judge's residence here and told the Department of Justice to prepare a detailed note on the matter, sources said. Sources said the secretary in the Department of Justice, who made a presentation on 'Judicial processes and their reform' concerning issues of Code of Conduct for the judges of higher judiciary and taking up post-retirement assignments by judges', was asked to prepare a comprehensive report on the issues raised and told to present it at the next panel meeting. They add that the members also sought a comprehensive bill addressing various issues and concerns on ethics and code of conduct of judges which were raised by them during the meeting. The MPs sought to know why no action had been taken on the matter concerning the recovery of unaccounted cash from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma and demanded a code of conduct should be in place. Some MPs also asked why no motion to remove Justice Varma has been moved so far. Sources said some demanded that justice should be equitable since a government employee may lose his/her job over a small corruption issue but no action has been initiated against a senior member of the judiciary even after the recovery of unaccounted cash. MPs of several parties also demanded that the government should have brought a motion by now to remove the judge concerned, especially after a Supreme Court-appointed committee of judges found the recovery of cash to be true. After the cash recovery, Justice Varma was repatriated to his parent court — the Allahabad High Court. He has denied the charges against him. The MPs also deliberated upon post-retirement assignments of judges and said they should not get such appointments till a period of five years after their retirement. Some MPs also said that former judges should not be appointed as MPs or to any other assignments by the President of India immediately post-retirement. The committee of the Rajya Sabha is headed by BJP MP Brij Lal and has former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who is a nominated MP, former minister of state for law P P Chaudhary, TMC MPs Sukhendu Sekhar Ray and Kalyan Banerjee, Congress's Vivek Tankha, and DMK's P Wilson and A Raja as its key members. Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi did not attend Tuesday's meeting. PTI SKC SKC NSD NSD This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Unaccounted cash row: Parliamentary panel asks why no FIR against Justice Varma
Several MPs at a Parliamentary panel meeting on Tuesday (June 24, 2025) asked why no FIR has been lodged over the recovery of unaccounted cash from a high court judge's residence here and told the Department of Justice to prepare a detailed note on the matter, sources said. The MPs also demanded a code of conduct for judges, and justices in the higher judiciary should not take up government assignments till a period of five years post-retirement, they said. During a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, MPs of various parties raised the issue and posed several questions to the Ministry of Law and Justice on what it was doing in the matters raised concerning the judiciary. Sources said the secretary in the Department of Justice, who made a presentation on 'Judicial processes and their reform' concerning issues of Code of Conduct for the judges of higher judiciary and taking up post-retirement assignments by judges", was asked to prepare a comprehensive report on the issues raised and told to present it at the next panel meeting. They add that the members also sought a comprehensive bill addressing various issues and concerns on ethics and code of conduct of judges which were raised by them during the meeting. The MPs sought to know why no action had been taken on the matter concerning the recovery of unaccounted cash from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma and demanded a code of conduct should be in place. Some MPs also asked why no motion to remove Justice Varma has been moved so far. Sources said some demanded that justice should be equitable since a government employee may lose his/her job over a small corruption issue but no action has been initiated against a senior member of the judiciary even after the recovery of unaccounted cash. MPs of several parties also demanded that the government should have brought a motion by now to remove the judge concerned, especially after a Supreme Court-appointed committee of judges found the recovery of cash to be true. After the cash recovery, Justice Varma was repatriated to his parent court — the Allahabad High Court. He has denied the charges against him. The MPs also deliberated upon post-retirement assignments of judges and said they should not get such appointments till a period of five years after their retirement. Some MPs also said that former judges should not be appointed as MPs or to any other assignments by the President of India immediately post-retirement. The committee of the Rajya Sabha is headed by BJP MP Brij Lal and has former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who is a nominated MP, former Minister of State for Law P.P. Chaudhary, TMC MPs Sukhendu Sekhar Ray and Kalyan Banerjee, Congress's Vivek Tankha, and DMK's P. Wilson and A. Raja as its key members. Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi did not attend Tuesday's (June 24, 2025) meeting.
Indian Express
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Opinion SC judges declaring assets is welcome. But it is not enough
The public declaration of the assets of 21 Supreme Court judges needs to be lauded as a testament to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna's commitment to embolden transparency and accountability. This step seems to be a timely attempt to address the increasing dismay over allegations of corruption in the judiciary. The Bench remains one of the most hallowed seats of power in the country. Yet, many times, allegations of corruption mar their image. Former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi once remarked, 'Judges don't drop from heaven', and to err is human. Then, how is it possible that no sitting judge has ever been impeached or convicted? The answer lies in the opaque design of the prosecution mechanisms when it comes to judicial officers. The release of the asset details comes in the wake of the discovery of unaccounted cash at a Delhi High Court judge's residence. But it barely covers the critical issues around judicial accountability. Notably, the release of assets is not a novel practice. In 2009, the Supreme Court passed a resolution endorsing the publication of the assets of judges. However, it was voluntary. The portal for uploading these details has remained dormant ever since. While judges enjoy enough immunity, they are not totally shielded from accountability. The Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 states that no judicial officer will be subject to a trial before any civil court, for any act done in their judicial capacity, if done in good faith. Similarly, the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 states that no court can entertain any civil or criminal proceedings against any judge in India for any accusation pertaining to their judicial duty. However, this is not absolute in nature because the Act also states that this does not debar any lawful authority from initiating action against someone, if the charge relates to them as 'individuals' and goes beyond their adjudicatory or administrative role. Further, in the 1991 Supreme Court verdict in the case of K Veeraswamy vs Union of India, the apex court established that no criminal proceedings against a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court will be registered without consulting the Chief Justice of India. The Constitution, under Article(s) 124 and 218, establishes the process of removal of judges on the grounds of 'proven misconduct or incapacity'. This entails a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament with a special majority, which sets a high threshold for impeachment. Whenever an inquiry is initiated against a judge, an internal committee led by the CJI or the relevant high court oversees the matter and decides as appropriate. The outcome, however, is not made public, and the general compass of the punitive measures extends to transfers, resignations or non-assignment of judicial work. The idea behind such immunity is to protect judicial officers from malicious litigation or assault on their independence. But the pitfall is that most of the time, the genuine instances of misbehaviour and corruption remain untouched. Judges all around the world enjoy some degree of immunity. But, they are not insulated from civil or criminal prosecution. The US, Argentina, South Korea and Russia are among the countries that have made it mandatory for judges to declare their assets. Canada and the United Kingdom, like India, have non-mandatory declaration systems: The details are made public only when asked for. While the US, UK and Germany have special legal procedures to try judges, Canada has a Judicial Council which exclusively deals with legal action against them. The push for financial disclosure is also endorsed by international standards like the Bangalore Principle of Judicial Conduct, which not only asks the judges to declare their wealth but also urges them to declare any conflict of interest that might affect their judicial integrity during trials. Also in Opinion | With Operation Sindoor, India demonstrates quiet capability and resolve in the face of terror The financial disclosure, though, is a critical step towards embracing transparency; it is just the tip of the iceberg. These details, otherwise, could have been obtained through Right to Information since the days of the Veeraswamy judgement (reiterated by a 2019 order of the Supreme Court). It said that the judge of any court is a 'public servant'. However, there is still no clarity over whether a judge can be tried under the Lokpal Act. The threshold of actions against a sitting judge also remains high. So, while the recent disclosures are a welcome gesture, judicial accountability needs more.
