Parliament has constitutional right to remove judges, says Law Minister amid impeachment buzz over Justice Varma
In an interview to PTI, Meghwal stressed that the government has no role in bringing an impeachment motion and that any such move must be led independently by MPs. 'It is entirely a matter of the MPs. The government is not in the picture,' he said.
The controversy surrounds Justice Yashwant Varma, a former judge of the Delhi High Court and currently with the Allahabad High Court, who has challenged the findings of an in-house inquiry panel that concluded he was guilty of misconduct. The panel, led by Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, was constituted by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and submitted its report in May.
According to the 25-page report, made public on the Supreme Court's official website, partially burnt sacks containing currency notes were discovered at Justice Varma's Lutyens' Delhi residence following a fire incident on March 14, allegedly caused by a short-circuit. Justice Varma has denied all allegations, claiming neither he nor any family member stored cash at the site.
The former judge has now moved the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate the inquiry committee's report and quash the recommendation by then CJI Khanna calling for his removal.
Under the Indian Constitution, a motion to impeach a judge requires the backing of at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. While Meghwal reiterated that the process is strictly legislative in nature, he confirmed that some MPs have shown interest in initiating the motion.
The matter is likely to gain momentum in the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament, which begins on July 21. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has already announced that his party's MPs will support the motion.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
US judge weighs putting new block on Trump's birthright citizenship order
A group of Democratic-led states urged a federal judge in Boston on Friday to deal another blow to President Donald Trump's attempts to limit birthright citizenship, even though a US Supreme Court decision last month made it more difficult for lower courts to block White House directives. Lawyers for New Jersey, arguing on behalf of 18 states and the District of Columbia, urged US District Judge Leo Sorokin to maintain an injunction he imposed in February that blocked Trump's executive order nationwide. The states' case is back in Sorokin's courtroom so he can assess the impact of the Supreme Court's landmark June 27 decision. In that 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court directed lower court judges like Sorokin that had blocked Trump's policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. Trump's executive order was already halted again last week by a different judge in New Hampshire, but a win in Sorokin's courtroom would give critics of the Trump policy another boost in litigation that is widely expected to end up back before the Supreme Court. Shankar Duraiswamy, an attorney for New Jersey, told Sorokin that the Supreme Court decision made clear that nationwide injunctions are permissible if they are the only way to provide 'complete relief' to litigants in a particular lawsuit. A nationwide block on Trump's executive order is the only way to avoid massive administrative upheaval for state governments, Duraiswamy said. Restricting birthright citizenship in some states but not others would make it difficult to administer federal benefits programs like Medicaid, he argued. This patchwork approach would also lead to confusion among immigrant parents and a surge of people moving to states where Trump's executive order is on hold, straining resources, he said. 'Half-measures are not warranted when enjoining a flagrantly unconstitutional executive action,' Duraiswamy said, adding that the Trump administration 'wants to rush forward with an unprecedented sea change in how citizenship is understood.' Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton countered that, by continuing to advocate for universal relief, the states had failed to come to grips with the Supreme Court's decision. Hamilton said the burden is on the states to propose a narrower relief but they have failed to do so. He also argued the states were alleging fundamentally monetary harms, which are typically not addressed through injunctions. Sorokin told him that the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals had already rejected that argument in an earlier decision that left his injunction in place. 'We are not asking this court to do anything contrary to circuit precedent,' Hamilton said. 'But it seems like you are,' the judge replied. Sorokin said he planned to issue a written decision in the coming weeks. Trump's executive order directed US agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States after February 19 if neither their mother nor father is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. Rather than address the legality of Trump's executive order, the Supreme Court in its June ruling used the case to discourage nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions — in which a single district court judge can block enforcement of a federal policy across the country. But the court raised the possibility that universal injunctions are still permissible in certain circumstances, including class actions, in which similarly situated people sue as a group, or if they are the only way to provide 'complete relief' to litigants in a particular lawsuit. A ruling from Sorokin, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, in favor of the states would be the second blow to Trump's executive order this month. On July 10 at a hearing in New Hampshire, US District Judge Joseph Laplante, an appointee of Republican president George W. Bush, issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump's order after he found that children whose citizenship status would be threatened by it could pursue their lawsuit as a class action. The Democratic-led states, backed by immigrant rights groups, argue the White House directive violated a right enshrined in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment that guarantees that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. The Justice Department has argued that the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the interpretation of birthright citizenship advanced by Trump, which they assert is consistent with the Constitution's text.
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
Caste census: Is Congress caught in OBC dilemma?
When the BJP-led Union government decided to enumerate castes in the upcoming decadal census, it was articulated as a strategic win for the Congress, as party's top leader Rahul Gandhi had vociferously batted for a national-level caste census.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Dy CM expresses disappontment over nearly 8,000 workers still being involved in manual scavenging
Pune: Expressing disappointment over nearly 8,000 workers still being involved in manual scavenging, deputy chief minister on Friday said it was against 's stature as a progressive state. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Raising the issue of manual scavenging, BJP MLA Atul Bhatkhalkar expressed concern for workers involved in it. "This is really a socially sensitive issue. Such an inhuman practice is still going on in the state. According to an audit of the central govt, a total of 18 workers died while cleaning septic tanks manually in the state from 2021 to 2024. We call Maharashtra a progressive state, but it is a blot on our state that the practice of manual scavenging is still going on here," Bhatkhalkar said in the assembly. Earlier this month, two workers on contract died because of suffocation after they entered a sewage chamber to clean it manually in Sangamner town in Ahilyanagar district. In 2022, four workers lost their lives similarly in Pune's Wagholi area. The BJP MLA also raised the issue of lack of safety gear of these workers and demanded that the state govt should give a plan of action to stop manual scavenging. Replying to Bhatkhalkar's queries, cabinet minister for social justice Sanjay Shirsat admitted that the state had fallen short of achieving the goal of ending manual scavenging. "It is indeed a serious issue. As per the Supreme Court's directive, the state calls for a report from every local body on scavenging, and many reports mention that manual scavenging is not practised in their jurisdiction. A recent survey revealed that over 7,500 workers are still involved in manual scavenging," Shirsat said. Deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar, present for the discussion, expressed disappointment over the issue. He said, "On one hand, we are speaking about India aiming to become the third-largest economy in the world, but on the other, nearly 8,000 workers in our state are still carrying out manual scavenging. It is against Maharashtra's progressive stature. On behalf of the state govt, I assure you that we will plan a time-bound programme to end manual scavenging. " Shirsat told the assembly that the state had made a provision of Rs405 crore to purchase robotic machinery to replace manual scavenging work.
