Latest news with #Varma
India Today
25 minutes 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
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Automotive
- Time of India
Over 18.8 lakh EVs supported under FAME schemes till June 2025: Govt
The government has extended support to more than 18.84 lakh electric vehicles (EVs) under the FAME India schemes as of June 30 this year, Minister of State for Steel and Heavy Industries, Bhupathiraju Srinivasa Varma, informed the Lok Sabha in a written reply. According to the minister, the FAME-II scheme accounted for the majority of the support, covering 16,29,600 EVs. The earlier FAME-I scheme, which ran from 2015 to 2019, supported 2,55,305 vehicles, reports IANS . The government has also sanctioned ₹912.5 crore for the installation of 9,332 public charging stations (PCS) under FAME-II. Of these, 8,885 charging stations have been installed across the country as of June-end. The schemes are applicable nationwide, including in tier 2 and tier 3 cities, and aim to accelerate adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles through demand creation, domestic technology development, and manufacturing support for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). FAME scheme Under FAME-I, approximately 520 charging stations were sanctioned with a budget outlay of ₹43 crore, Varma added. The FAME (Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles in India) programme was launched in 2015 as part of the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan (NEMMP) 2020. While FAME-I concluded in 2019, FAME-II was active from 2019 to 2024, with the objective of promoting a robust EV ecosystem and aligning with India's emission reduction commitments under COP 21.
Hans India
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Cash row: CJI Gavai likely to recuse from hearing Justice Varma's plea, assures urgent hearing
The Supreme Court on Wednesday hinted that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai-led Bench will not likely take up for hearing the plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging his indictment by the three-member in-house committee in the cash-discovery episode. This unfolded when senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, urged CJI Gavai to constitute a Bench for urgent hearing of the matter. At this, CJI Gavai said, 'I think that it may not be proper for me to pick up that matter because I was part of the conversation'. However, the CJI assured Sibal that a Bench will be constituted to hear the plea filed by Justice Varma. 'We will just take a call and constitute a Bench,' said CJI Gavai. The writ petition filed by Justice Varma sought to quash the communication forwarded by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the President and then Prime Minister to take action against Justice Varma. As per the petition, the in-house panel acted in a 'pre-determined manner' and denied Justice Varma a fair opportunity to defend himself. On Monday, 145 MPs from both the ruling and Opposition parties submitted an impeachment notice against Justice Varma to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. Justice Varma has been in the eye of a storm since the March 14 discovery of the burnt cash in an outhouse of his official residence allotted to him while serving in the Delhi High Court. Following the cash-discovery row, which sent shockwaves across the judicial corridors, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and an in-house probe was set up to probe the allegations. According to the probe committee, both direct and electronic evidence confirmed that the storeroom was under the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family. By way of strong inferential evidence, the in-house panel said the burnt cash was removed from the storeroom during the early hours of March 15. In conclusion, the three-member inquiry committee, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, CJ G.S. Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh HC and Karnataka HC's Justice Anu Sivaraman, found the allegations serious enough to merit impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma. It opined that Justice Varma's misconduct was not only proven but also grave enough to warrant his removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
The Hindu
13 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
CJI agrees to constitute Bench to hear plea on behalf of Justice Varma
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) said he will constitute a Bench for hearing a petition filed on behalf of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to the President and Prime Minister, in the month of May, to remove the judge from office. The Chief Justice said he, however, would not be part of the Bench. 'I will have to constitute a Bench on this. I think it will not be proper for me to take up the matter because I was part of the consultations then,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who made an oral mentioning for an early hearing of the petition. 'That is for you to decide,' Mr. Sibal replied. 'We will just take a call and constitute a Bench,' Chief Justice Gavai said. Mr. Sibal said the petition has raised several constitutional issues with respect to the recommendation made by Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) for the removal of Justice Varma. The Chief Justice's willingness to judicially examine the question of removal of Justice Varma comes a couple of days after a removal motion was initiated when Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members submitted notices to the presiding officers of their respective Houses. The petition in the Supreme Court argued that the in-house inquiry process was a 'parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism' designed for the judiciary to usurp the Parliament's exclusive authority. An in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed that unaccounted cash was found in the gutted storeroom at the official residential premises of Justice Varma after a blaze on March 14-15. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the Prime Minister and President in May after Justice Varma refused to resign. The challenge in the apex court contended that the in-house inquiry took away the exclusive powers of the Parliament under Article 124 and 218 of the Constitution to remove judges through an address supported by a special majority after an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 'This Act provides a comprehensive, legislatively sanctioned process with stringent safeguards, including formal charges, cross-examination, and proof beyond reasonable doubt for 'proved misbehaviour'. On the other hand, the in-house procedure, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority,' the petition said. The petition, filed under an anonymous acronym 'XXX', described the petitioner as an Allahabad High Court judge. The in-house procedure, devised by the Supreme Court, had no legal sanction. It was a threat to the separation of powers, the petition argued. Justice Varma urged the apex court to declare the in-house procedure unconstitutional. The petition argued the in-house inquiry procedure against sitting judges was also a threat to judicial independence, an essential part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. 'It overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thus erodes judicial independence and public confidence,' it submitted. It also made a direct attack on Chief Justice Khanna, saying the latter did not give Justice Varma a personal hearing after the committee report came out nor had afforded him a chance to properly review the document. The petition pointed out that the inquiry reached its conclusions merely on the basis of presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the 'discovery' of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared. The whole series of events were based on certain photos and videos privately taken by some officials. It said the inquiry committee was unfair to the High Court and did not find the answers it was constituted for, including when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse.
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Cash discovery row: Justice Varma urges SC to accord urgent hearing on his plea
Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to accord urgent hearing on his plea seeking to invalidate a report by an in-house inquiry panel, which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row . "I will have to constitute a bench," Chief Justice B R Gavai told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who mentioned the matter for Varma. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Finance Leadership Healthcare Degree Public Policy Data Analytics Artificial Intelligence MBA Management Operations Management Design Thinking Technology Product Management healthcare Cybersecurity Project Management Data Science PGDM CXO Others others Data Science MCA Digital Marketing Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details The CJI was heading a bench which also comprised Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi. 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 Undo Sibal requested the bench to list the matter as early as possible, saying they have raised some constitutional issues in the plea. Varma has also sought quashing of the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna urging Parliament to initiate impeachment against him. Live Events The three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court conducted the inquiry for 10 days, examined 55 witnesses and visited the scene of the accidental fire that started at around 11.35 pm on March 14 at the official residence of Justice Varma, then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and now in the Allahabad High Court.
