Latest news with #YashwantVarma
The Print
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
RS panel likely to ask Centre to define ‘proved misbehavior' & ‘incapacity'—grounds for removing judges
Under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the Parliament can initiate steps to remove a Supreme Court judge 'on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity'. The provision is also applicable on high court judges through Article 218 of the Constitution. Chaired by BJP MP Brij Lal, the 31-member Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, which met on 24 June, is expected to hold at least two more rounds of deliberations before finalising its recommendations, according to MPs who attended the previous meeting. New Delhi: At a time Justice Yashwant Varma is facing a potential impeachment motion over a cash haul from his official residence, a Rajya Sabha committee is likely to recommend to the Centre to define what counts as 'proved misbehavior' and 'incapacity'—the two grounds for removing Supreme Court and high court judges. According to sources, in their interventions, the members of the Rajya Sabha panel including BJP as well as Opposition MPs, underlined the need to clearly define misbehaviour and incapacity. The justice department secretary was also present in the meeting. 'Members feel that this remains a grey area. While incapacity is largely understood, misbehaviour, unless defined, can have many interpretations. Either Article 124 needs to be amended or there needs to be a Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill like the one introduced during the UPA II government that made an attempt in this direction,' said an MP. Currently, the removal procedure of judges is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012, was passed by the Lok Sabha, however, it lapsed after it was never taken up for consideration by the Rajya Sabha. The bill had listed nine definitions of misbehaviour including 'making demands for consideration in cash or kind for giving judgments', committing an offence involving moral turpitude, wilfully giving false information in the declaration of assets and liabilities. It also laid out judicial standards followed by judges. It sought to bar judges from 'entering into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters which are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination by him'. A member of the parliamentary panel said that many MPs flagged the need for such a law citing the example of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav who made controversial remarks at an event of the Vishva Hindu Parishad in December 2024. The UPA I government had given Cabinet nod to Judges Inquiry (Amendment) Bill which proposed a permanent mechanism to deal with corruption allegations against judges. But it was later shelved. Currently, the 16-point 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life', adopted by the SC in 1997, deals with code of conduct for the judiciary. 'The fact that there are flagrant violations of these guidelines was discussed in the meeting,' said the MP. Sources said some MPs suggested revisiting the 1991 K Veeraswami judgment, which mandated that the sanction of the Chief of Justice of India was needed to register criminal cases against judges of the higher judiciary. 'Some MPs said that if the Supreme Court can set a timeline for the President to clear Bills, the Parliament should also set a timeline for the CJI to take a call on such requests for sanctions on a time-bound manner. It's been 34 years since that judgment,' said an MP. On 14 March, wads of currency notes were discovered in a room at Justice Varma's official residence in New Delhi, while he was serving as a judge at the Delhi High Court. Justice Varma was subsequently repatriated to the Allahabad High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium. He has rejected the allegations against him in response to probes undertaken by the Delhi High Court chief justice and a committee set up by the SC. The committee submitted its report on 3 May, saying that it is 'firmly of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations' against Justice Varma and that the misconduct found proved is 'serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings' for his removal. Earlier, ThePrint reported that members of the committee suggested that like in bureaucracy, there should be a cooling-off period of 5 years for judges before they can take up post-retirement jobs. In its report tabled in the Rajya Sabha 7 February 2024, the Parliamentary committee had stated that it was of the view that the retirement age of judges should be raised and 'the practice of post-retirement assignments to judges of Supreme Court and High Courts in bodies/institutions financed from public exchequer may be reassessed to ensure their impartiality.' 'The committee suggests that the entire gamut of issues related to such appointments of retired judges may be comprehensively studied again and relooked upon by the Ministry,' it had said in the report. (Edited by Ajeet Tiwari) Also Read: Justice Varma row: Congress seeks SC-appointed panel's report to decide its stand on impeachment proposal
New Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Clamour for action against HC judge grows at House panel meet
According to sources, the Department of Justice made a presentation on 'Judicial Processes and Their Reform', addressing concerns such as the code of conduct for judges of the higher judiciary and the issue of post-retirement appointments. They also called for a comprehensive report to be prepared and presented at the panel's next meeting. A source said that MPs sought clarification on why no action had been taken in the case involving the recovery of unaccounted cash from Justice Yashwant Varma's residence. They also pressed for a formal code of conduct to be implemented. Some MPs also questioned why no motion had yet been introduced to remove Justice Varma. The lawmakers expressed that the government should already have moved a motion to remove the judge in question — especially in light of findings from a Supreme Court-appointed committee of judges, which confirmed the cash recovery. Deliberating on broader aspects, MPs opined that judges should not be eligible for government appointments for five years after retirement. Discussions included suggestions that former judges should not be appointed as MPs or to any other roles by the President immediately after retiring. The Rajya Sabha committee is chaired by BJP MP Brij Lal and includes former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi (a nominated MP), former Minister of State for Law PP Chaudhary, TMC MPs Sukhendu Sekhar Ray and Kalyan Banerjee, Congress's Vivek Tankha, and DMK members P Wilson and A Raja among its key members. 'Former judges should not be appointed as MPs' Deliberating on broader aspects, MPs opined that judges should not be eligible for government appointments for five years after retirement. Discussions included suggestions that former judges should not be appointed as MPs or to any other roles by the President immediately after retiring.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Committee discusses judges' conduct, flags row over justice Varma
The controversy surrounding sitting high court judge, justice Yashwant Varma, surfaced during a meeting of the parliamentary standing committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice on Tuesday, officials aware of the development said. The controversy began on March 14 when a fire broke out at the outhouse of justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. (PTI) The committee, chaired by Bharatiya Janata Party MP Brij Lal, heard the secretary of the department of justice on judicial processes and reforms, specifically focusing on the code of conduct for judges of the higher judiciary, and the taking up of post-retirement assignments by judges, said officials. An official familiar with the discussions stated that some MPs introduced the justice Varma case as relevant to the meeting's agenda. Discussions reportedly centered on the code of conduct for judges and the concept of a mandatory cooling-off period before retired judges accept new positions. Also Read | Won't acquiesce to injustice: HC judge Yashwant Varma slams ultimatum to resign 'Some suggestions were made by the members especially on the code of conduct of the judges and a suggestion was also made to perhaps look at the Veeraswami case,' the official said. Justice Veeraswami, a former chief justice of the Madras high court, was accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during his tenure, and challenged the Central Bureau of Investigation's case against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The apex court held that judges were indeed 'public servants' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, aligning with the definition provided in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, but added that to prosecute a judge, prior sanction was required. Last month, vice-president Jagdeep Dhankar called for revisiting the landmark verdict. Also Read | Justice Varma's defence in plea rests on proof of money stash Another committee member said Times that discussions included proposals for a strict cooling-off period before retired judges can take up post-retirement positions. 'There is a belief by the members that this immediate positions should not be the case,' the member said, referencing the current absence of any constitutional provision mandating such a period. Members reportedly suggested a specific time frame after retirement before a judge could accept another position, said officials. Officials said that there were questions about the status of the report of a panel formed by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. 'A question was also raised as to why had the panel set up by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna not yet submitted its report to the Parliament. There are already reports on what the panel has found out and what it has suggested, so why is it not being submitted in Parliament?' said the officials. The controversy began on March 14 when a fire broke out at the outhouse of justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. Firefighters reportedly found charred currency notes stuffed in sacks. The chief justice of the Delhi high court, justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, flagged the matter to then CJI Khanna, who constituted a three-judge inquiry committee, which submitted its report on May 3, concluding that justice Varma was liable for misconduct. On May 8, the Supreme Court issued a press release stating that justice Varma had submitted his response but had reiterated his earlier stand and denied wrongdoing, calling the incident a 'conspiracy.' Justice Varma was subsequently divested of judicial work and transferred to his parent high court in Allahabad. On May 8, a letter by CJI Khanna was also sent to the President and Prime Minister, enclosing the inquiry report and requesting action. The meeting comes days before the monsoon session of Parliament is set to begin. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha are expected to take up an impeachment motion against justice Varma in the session.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
At House panel meet, questions on why no FIR after cash seizure at judge's residence
From judges attending ideological meetings to the demand for FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma to judges not following code of conduct rules, the Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice discussed a wide range of issues at a meeting on Tuesday. Among the most asked questions by the committee members was why an FIR was not registered against Justice Yashwant Varma after allegations of cash being found at his official residence. Cash was found at the residence of Justice Varma in Delhi when a fire broke out there on March 14. Justice Varma was indicted by the in-house inquiry on May 8. The government has initiated the process for bringing an impeachment motion against Justice Varma during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament. It is learnt that a member also suggested that the 1991 judgment in 'K Veeraswami vs Union of India' case should be relooked and if judges are involved in wrongdoings, they should face an FIR. The Department of Justice Secretary is learnt to have told the panel members that he will get back regarding the demand for an FIR against Justice Varma. The issue of Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court against whom Rajya Sabha members have moved an impeachment notice also came up. One member wanted to know what action had been taken against Justice Yadav by the CJI. In December last year, Justice Yadav, a sitting judge of Allahabad High Court, had made questionable remarks on Muslim marriage practices and backed the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) while speaking at a VHP event. An impeachment notice was submitted by 54 Rajya Sabha MPs against Justice Yadav. At Tuesday's meeting of the committee chaired by BJP MP Brij Lal, another member was said to have suggested that judges should have a cooling off period of five years after retirement during which they shouldn't be allowed to take up any kind of job or work, or political assignments or contest elections. Another member also suggested an increase in the retirement age of judges and that they should get a better salary and pension. The agenda of Tuesday's meeting was to discuss the code of conduct for judges of higher judiciary. Asad Rehman is with the national bureau of The Indian Express and covers politics and policy focusing on religious minorities in India. A journalist for over eight years, Rehman moved to this role after covering Uttar Pradesh for five years for The Indian Express. During his time in Uttar Pradesh, he covered politics, crime, health, and human rights among other issues. He did extensive ground reports and covered the protests against the new citizenship law during which many were killed in the state. During the Covid pandemic, he did extensive ground reporting on the migration of workers from the metropolitan cities to villages in Uttar Pradesh. He has also covered some landmark litigations, including the Babri Masjid-Ram temple case and the ongoing Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath temple dispute. Prior to that, he worked on The Indian Express national desk for three years where he was a copy editor. Rehman studied at La Martiniere, Lucknow and then went on to do a bachelor's degree in History from Ramjas College, Delhi University. He also has a Masters degree from the AJK Mass Communication Research Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia. ... Read More
&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.
