Supreme Court Junks RTI Plea Seeking In-House Inquiry Report On Justice Varma Cash Row
Last Updated:
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the top court rejected the application, filed by Maharashtra-based advocate Amritpal Singh Khalsa.
The Supreme Court has rejected an application under Right To Information (RTI) Act, seeking to make public the in-house inquiry committee's report linked with the alleged cash recovery from the house of former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma.
Former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had forwarded the report along with a letter to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi earlier this month. The apex court has also refused to release a copy of that letter.
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the top court rejected the application, filed by Maharashtra-based advocate Amritpal Singh Khalsa, saying that the report cannot be provided in view of the decision in the Subhash Chandra Agarwal case.
According to Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship is exempted from disclosure unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. According to Section 11 of the act, third-party information is exempted from disclosure.
'The information cannot be provided in view of tests outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 13.11.2019 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.10044- 45/2010 (СPIO, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCС 481) viz. independence of judiciary, proportionality test, fiduciary relationship, invasion of the right to privacy and breach of duty of confidentiality etc. with reference to provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005," the Additional Registrar said in the reply as reported by Bar and Bench.
The Supreme Court had ordered an in-house probe into the alleged discovery of half-burnt cash. Earlier this month, the committee submitted its report to the Chief Justice.
'The three-member Committee consisting of Mr Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Mr Justice G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and Ms Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, constituted for conducting an inquiry into the allegations against Mr Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge, has submitted its report dated 03.05.2025 to the Chief Justice of India on 04.05.2025," said a release issued by the top court.
While the preliminary report of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice and the response of Justice Varma, along with the photos and videos taken by the Delhi Police, were publicised by uploading them on the Supreme Court's website, the final iquiry report was not made public.
(With inputs from agencies)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Justice Oka highlights the interconnection between environmental justice and social justice at Climate Change Conference
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Former Supreme Court judge Abhay S Oka on Thursday said that environmental justice , as developed by India's constitutional courts, is deeply intertwined with the idea of social justice 'It is my privilege to address this gathering on a very important subject, the environment, which is dear to me. As a judge of the Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court, and Supreme Court, I was lucky enough to deal with many environmental matters,' Justice Oka said at the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) Climate Change Conference and Awards emphasized that environmental issues go beyond preserving nature and have direct consequences on the lives and health of human beings.'When we talk about environmental justice, social justice inevitably comes into the picture. Protection of the environment is not only necessary for preserving natural resources available on planet Earth, but more importantly, it is essential for human beings to lead a healthy, constructive, and meaningful life. If we are not able to preserve our environment and protect it from degradation, we are doing an injustice to society at large,' he gave Delhi's recurring winter air pollution crisis as an example of inequality in environmental access.'That is where social justice comes into the picture. One classic example is Delhi. Every year, from December to February, we are hit by massive air pollution. Most of the people present here today can afford air purifiers at home, but the majority of Delhi's population living in shanties or working on the streets can't afford air purifiers.'Justice Oka stressed that constitutional guarantees of social justice must include environmental protection, citing how pollution affects livelihoods, particularly among vulnerable communities like fishermen.'Take, for example, pollution of our rivers or our seas affects the livelihood of the fishing community. Thus, every environmental issue, every degradation, every destruction of the environment has a direct nexus with social justice guaranteed by the Constitution.'He highlighted that environmental degradation also affects economic justice and the national economy, disproportionately impacting the poor. He reaffirmed the significance of legal doctrines such as sustainable development and the polluter pays principle , developed by courts to safeguard environmental also questioned the country's definition of development: whether it should be limited to infrastructure like highways and flyovers, or be reoriented toward providing essentials to the poor. He warned that the current path would render sustainable development from over four decades of legal experience, he observed that very few citizens engage with environmental concerns seriously, and those who do are often labeled as anti-development.'I have been part of several environmental decisions in the Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court, and the Supreme Court. What I find from my long experience of 20 years as a lawyer and nearly 22 years as a judge of three constitutional courts is that very few citizens show enthusiasm and courage to take up environmental issues. It is not easy to address environmental concerns, as those who raise these issues rarely get active societal support.'He added that environmental defenders are often misunderstood and vilified for standing against damaging practices.'Those advocating environmental causes rarely received societal support, and in such a case, how could they expect to receive support from the government?'Referring to the landmark MC Mehta case, Justice Oka said the Supreme Court's directions laid the foundation for environmental jurisprudence, but questioned if society has truly honored those who led the charge.'Have we adequately honoured or remembered him (Mehta, who filed the PIL), especially today, as we celebrate World Environment Day?'He also reflected on his past work addressing noise pollution caused by illegal loudspeaker use during festivals.'Noise pollution caused by religious festivals affects human health seriously. Everyone has a constitutional right not to be compelled to hear what they don't wish to, yet illegal use of loudspeakers continues, forcing people to endure unwanted noise. Noise pollution isn't just irritating, it impacts hearing capacity and brain functioning.'Justice Oka concluded with a call for humility and awareness, emphasizing that humanity is a part of nature—not its owner.'We degrade and destroy the environment under the wrong notion that the earth belongs to us, but in fact, we belong to the earth. Some of us are under the wrong notion that the environment belongs to us. In fact, we belong to the environment.'Quoting Article 21 of the Constitution, he reminded that the right to dignity includes the right to live in a clean, pollution-free environment.'If you are living in an atmosphere polluted by air and other forms of pollution, you cannot live with dignity. Protecting the environment, including the manmade and natural environments, is of great concern for human existence.'[Inputs from PTI]
United News of India
24 minutes ago
- United News of India
SILF Climate Change Conference 2025 honours Justice Abhay S. Oka with Sustainability Award
New Delhi, June 5 (UNI) In a stirring convergence of law and environmental consciousness, the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) hosted the SILF Climate Change Conference and Awards 2025 in New Delhi on World Environment Day, recognising the Indian judiciary's unwavering role in protecting the environment and promoting sustainable development. The event was graced by Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as Chief Guest, and Justice Jasmeet Singh, Judge of the Delhi High Court, as Guest of Honour. The highlight of the ceremony was the presentation of the SILF Sustainability Award 2025 to Justice Abhay S. Oka, former Supreme Court Judge, for his extraordinary contributions to environmental jurisprudence in India. Delivering a powerful keynote, Justice Oka stated, 'Environmental justice cannot be separated from social and economic justice. Pollution and environmental degradation hurt the most vulnerable the hardest, affecting their dignity and the basic rights under Article 21 of our Constitution.' He lamented the lack of recognition for environmental activists and emphasised the need to translate judicial principles into action. 'On World Environment Day, we must honour the unsung heroes of environmental protection and turn our ideals into tangible action,' he added. Justice Jasmeet Singh stressed the urgency of the climate crisis and the judiciary's pivotal role: 'The crisis we face today is a consequence of unsustainable development. But landmark judgments like M.C. Mehta prove that environmental conservation and progress must coexist.' He urged society to embrace sustainability as a path to innovation and collective prosperity, not merely a challenge. 'It is through collective effort that climate change can become a catalyst for resilient growth,' he said. "We Belong to Mother Earth": Justice Sanjay Karol Justice Sanjay Karol made an emotional plea for grassroots environmental action: 'We must stop viewing climate change as a problem to be solved later. It is a climate emergency now. The courts have done their part, now every citizen must rise to the occasion.' He dismissed the notion that judicial activism hinders economic growth, asserting that both can progress in harmony to achieve constitutional goals of sustainability. Dr. Lalit Bhasin, President of SILF and Chairman of the CII National Committee on Legal Services, applauded the judiciary's role. He said, 'The judgments of our courts have sown seeds of environmental accountability in India's governance landscape. These precedents are now the guiding light for lawmakers, regulators, and businesses alike.' The Awards Ceremony honoured key individuals and organisations for championing sustainability, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Retired Supreme Court Judge, Dr. Bina Modi, Chairperson, Modi Enterprises, Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate, Prof. (Dr.) S. Shanthakumar, VC, Gujarat National Law University, Rajesh Jha, Regional Legal Director, South Asia, Reckitt India, Sharad Aggarwal, CEO, Godfrey Phillips India, Additionally, Plaques of Honour were presented to Justice Karol and Justice Jasmeet Singh for their sustained commitment to environmental justice. Engaging Panel Discussions on Judicial Responsibility, Two thematic panels 'Courts as Saviours of Clean Air, Trees, Rivers, Forests, and Climate in India' and 'Role of Judiciary in Balancing Economic Development and Sustainability'/featured rich dialogues by experts on how India's legal framework must evolve to address the country's ecological challenges. The SILF Climate Change Conference and Awards 2025 reaffirmed that law and climate responsibility are inextricably linked and that India's legal fraternity must remain at the forefront of environmental stewardship. UNI SNG RN
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Drugs not recovered, man walks free after 12 years in NDPS case in Noida
Noida: Twelve years after being jailed for allegedly possessing contraband, a man was acquitted, with the prosecution having failed to convince the court about any sort of recovery. A court of additional district and sessions judge on Tuesday said the prosecution did not follow the procedures mandated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Judge Abhishek Pandey ordered the acquittal of Dilip Kumar, a resident of Sunpura in Mainpuri district, who was already out on bail in a case pertaining to the alleged recovery of diazepam powder by Sector 24 police in 2013. The court observed "grave lapses" in the prosecution case as the recovered substance was not produced before the court, the accused was not searched in front of any neutral witness or magistrate as mandated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and after sending 24 grams of the recovered powder to the forensic lab, there was no mention of how the remaining one gram of powder was handled. Declaring that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was arrested with any contraband substance, the court exonerated him from charges under Section 18/20 of the NDPS Act and said that since Kumar was already out on bail, his bailers should be recused. He was, however, directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 30,000 and two sureties of equal value in the court. "Under established norms, the recovered powder should have been placed in two packets with proper marking and sent for forensic testing and the other kept under seal in the police station, but this has neither been detailed in the case details nor admitted by prosecution witnesses in their deposition," the court observed. The defence counsel objected to the accusations and said that the accused was falsely implicated in the case and that nothing was ever recovered from him. "It was a false story and the procedures under the NDPS Act were not followed by the prosecution," the defence counsel said, seeking exoneration from all charges. It also expressed surprise over the missing one gram of powder and the statement of prosecution witness 3, who said that he received three sealed packets from SI Yadav on the night of the arrest. "If there were three sealed packets, what was in them and where it was kept is not clear," the court observed. According to the prosecution, a police team under sub-inspector Srinivas Yadav was on regular vehicle checking duty near Videocon Square on the evening of Sept 26, 2013, when they received a tip-off about a person coming in that direction with diazepam tablets and a knife. Yadav, who registered an FIR the same day, informed the court that he, along with the police team, intercepted the accused and overpowered him when he was trying to escape. "On asking the reason for escape, he confessed to having diazepam powder and a knife. We informed him about his right to be searched before a magistrate or gazetted officer, but the accused expressed his eagerness to be searched by police and we recovered a white powder, which weighed 25grams of diazepam powder, and a knife," Yadav informed the court. Prosecution witness Yadav, who was referring to the case file during deposition, told the court that he retired in 2016 and was undergoing treatment for depression.
