Government to initiate removal motion against Justice Yashwant Varma
The Government is set to begin the process of collecting signatures for a motion seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, with several major political parties having expressed their willingness, in principle, to support the initiative.
Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) said that while the process of obtaining signatures would commence shortly, a decision was yet to be taken on whether the motion would be introduced in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. A minimum of 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) is required for the Lok Sabha, and at least 50 MPs for the Rajya Sabha, for such a motion to be admitted.
The Monsoon Session of Parliament will begin on July 21 and conclude on August 21, following a last-minute extension of 10 days. President Droupadi Murmu gave assent to the revised schedule earlier in the day. 'The Government has enough business to conduct,' Mr. Rijiju said, without elaborating on the reasons for extending the session beyond the earlier end date of August 12.
Even if the motion is introduced during the upcoming session, it is unlikely to reach a conclusion within the same period. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, once a motion for the removal of a judge is admitted in either House, the presiding officer is required to constitute a three-member committee to investigate the allegations forming the basis of the motion.
This committee is composed of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. The committee must submit its report within three months, though an extension may be granted.
Responding to speculation regarding the findings of a fact-finding panel led by the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Mr. Rijiju clarified that such a report alone could not suffice to proceed with a removal motion in Parliament. He noted that the panel had not indicted Justice Varma, but had recommended the appropriate next steps, as the constitutional authority to remove a judge rests solely with Parliament.
The case concerns a fire incident at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi in March, during his tenure as a judge of the Delhi High Court. The incident led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of currency notes in the outhouse. Justice Varma reportedly denied knowledge of the cash.
A Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry committee, however, reportedly found material to recommend removal after recording statements from several witnesses, including the judge. Justice Khanna subsequently wrote to the President and the Prime Minister, recommending Justice Varma's removal—thereby initiating the constitutional procedure for removal of a member of the higher judiciary.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
'State Can't Tap Phones Just To Prevent Corruption In Violation Of Law': Madras High Court
Last Updated: The HC said phone tapping is permitted only under Section 5(2) of Telegraph Act when there is a clear public emergency or threat to public safety, backed by reasons and due process In a significant judgment that reiterates constitutional protections in the digital age, the Madras High Court has quashed a 2011 phone-tapping order issued by the union ministry of home affairs against a private company executive, holding that the interception lacked the mandatory threshold of 'public emergency" or 'public safety" as required under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh opined that the Centre's authorisation to intercept the phone conversations of P Kishore—then managing director of Everonn Education Ltd—was issued without sufficient justification and in violation of the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21. A bribery FIR was registered by the CBI in August 2011 involving an IRS officer (A1), who allegedly demanded Rs 50 lakh to shield the company from tax scrutiny. Kishore (A2) was accused of arranging the bribe, and a friend of the officer (A3) was intercepted carrying the cash. However, the CBI did not apprehend Kishore in possession of the bribe or at the scene. The Centre had authorised the interception on the grounds of 'public safety" and 'preventing incitement to the commission of an offence". However, the court noted that these terms cannot be used in a vague or routine manner. Citing the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in People's Union for Civil Liberties and KS Puttaswamy, the judge held that such surveillance must meet the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality, and legality. 'Neither the occurrence of public emergency nor interest of public safety is a secretive condition… either would be apparent to a reasonable person," the court observed, referring to the SC precedents and added that no such justification was visible in the interception order, which appeared to be 'mechanical" and 'cyclostyled". Further, the high court held that procedural safeguards under Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules, which require review by a committee and periodic oversight, were also not followed, thereby rendering the order illegal. Importantly, the court rejected the authorities' argument that even assuming that the order under Section 5(2) of the Act was without jurisdiction, the evidence so collected was admissible since it is a well-settled proposition of law that even illegally collected evidence is admissible provided it is relevant. The court opined that once the surveillance order was found to be unconstitutional, any material or evidence collected as a result of it would also be tainted. The HC also pointed out that in the case at hand, the petitioner was only accused of an offence; hence, the presumption of innocence still applied in his favour. Referring to the illegality of the interception, the bench held, 'Where the tapping of phones is found to have been done in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act, the order would be clearly unconstitutional. An unconstitutional order is void under Article 13 and no rights or liabilities can flow from it." First Published:
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Not fighting Muslims, plurality must be saved, says new Bengal BJP prez Samik
1 2 Kolkata: BJP "isn't fighting Muslims... and the state's plurality needs to be saved", Samik Bhattacharya said on Thursday after taking over as the party's new state president. "There is a conscious effort to divide Bengal on basis of religion. The minority community should understand that we are not fighting against them. We are fighting against the forces that shove stones in their boys' hands. We want to replace stones with books. We want to replace the swords in their hands with pens," Bhattacharya said in his first speech after being unanimously elected state BJP's president. Bhattacharya's line contrasts sharply with the shrill anti-Muslim pitch adopted by his BJP colleague and assembly opposition leader, Suvendu Adhikari, and comes after his party's abject defeat in the Kaliganj assembly bypoll. Kaliganj is a Muslim-majority constituency in Nadia. BJP was the only party that saw its vote share dip (from 31% in 2021 to 28.2% now), prompting Trinamool to emphasise how BJP had failed to hold on to even its majority-community votes. You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya's colleagues in the party keep up their anti-Muslim pitch even as he takes a conciliatory approach, which would indicate the party has hit on a good cop-bad cop strategy with Bengal's 2.5 crore-odd Muslim voters. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo "Look at Bengal's villages. Morchhe Musalman, marchhe Musalman (Muslims are killing and Muslims are dying). Who is responsible for this situation? Those who do not like the BJP may not vote for us. But they should accept that 90% of the people killed in the last three years have been Muslims," he said. "The BJP wants visarjan and Muharram processions to walk side by side without any malice against each other. We do not want riots. We want the minority youth to know Bengal through the eyes of Syed Mujtaba Ali and Kazi Nazrul Islam, not terrorists. We want to save Bengal's plurality," Bhattacharya said, harping on communal amity with the entire Bengal BJP leadership and former union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on the dais. "Bengal's voters know that only the BJP can defeat the Trinamool. The binary, created in 2019 Lok Sabha, was intact even in Kaliganj. The Trinamool will have to go now," he said, adding: "People have rejected Mamata Banerjee and want investment and jobs. People will have the last word this time."
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Will state bans on transgender athletes in women's sports be upheld? US Supreme Court to weigh in
The US Supreme Court agreed on Thursday (July 3) to hear challenges to state laws banning transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports. The high court said it will take up appeals involving laws enacted in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit athletes who were assigned male at birth from competing on female teams in public schools and universities. The cases will be heard during the term that begins in October, with a ruling expected next year. The court's decision to hear the cases comes amid a wave of legislation across the country and intensifying political debate on the issue. Idaho's 2020 law, called the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, was blocked by lower courts after a lawsuit by a transgender university athlete who argued the ban violated constitutional rights to equal protection. Similarly, West Virginia's 2021 law was struck down after a middle school student challenged her exclusion from the girls' track team, with an appeals court ruling it violated Title IX, the federal law barring sex-based discrimination in education. More than two dozen Republican-led states have enacted similar restrictions in recent years. Supporters say the bans are needed to protect fairness in women's sports. Critics argue they are discriminatory and deny transgender youth equal opportunities. Joshua Block, senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the challengers, said the laws target already vulnerable children. 'We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play,' Block said. 'Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status.' The court's move follows a series of recent legal and political actions on transgender rights. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for minors. The Supreme Court's decision comes amid broader efforts by President Donald Trump to restrict transgender rights. President Donald Trump, who made the issue a centerpiece of his campaign, signed an executive order in February banning transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports at schools receiving federal funding. 'From now on women's sports will be only for women,' Trump declared. 'With this executive order the war on women's sports is over.' The order also allows federal agencies to cut funding to schools that violate the policy. The Department of Education has since enforced the order by investigating schools, including the University of Pennsylvania, which recently agreed to ban transgender athletes from women's teams as part of a Title IX settlement related to swimmer Lia Thomas. The Supreme Court will hear arguments during its next term starting in October. The eventual ruling could set nationwide precedent on whether schools must allow transgender girls to participate in female sports under the Constitution and Title IX.
