Bringing motion to remove Justice Varma matter of MPs, govt not in picture: Arjun Ram Meghwal
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said on Friday that bringing an impeachment motion in Parliament against Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma is entirely a matter of the MPs and the government is nowhere in the picture.In an interview to PTI Videos, Meghwal pointed out that the in-house committee set up by then chief justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to look into the allegations against Justice Varma has already submitted its report.If Justice Varma does not agree with the report and approaches the Supreme Court or a high court, it is his prerogative, the minister said.He said Parliament has the right to remove a Supreme Court or high court judge.The support of at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha is needed to pass a motion for the impeachment of a judge, he added.Meghwal said this is entirely a matter of the MPs, some efforts have been made by them and the government is not in the picture.Meanwhile, Justice Varma has moved the Supreme Court, seeking to invalidate the report submitted by the in-house inquiry panel, which has found him guilty of misconduct in a cash-discovery row.Varma has sought the quashing of the May 8 recommendation by then CJI Khanna to remove him from his position.The government is pushing for a motion to remove Justice Varma in Parliament's Monsoon session that is scheduled to start from July 21. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has said the MPs of his party will also sign the motion.The 25-page inquiry report of Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, uploaded on the Supreme Court's website, contains two short notes in Hindi that mention that after a fire at the storeroom of Justice Varma's Lutyens' Delhi residence on March 14 was doused, four to five half-burnt sacks containing currency notes were found. The report said prima facie, it seemed that a short-circuit had led to the fire.Justice Varma, who was a judge of the Delhi High Court then, had, in his response, strongly denounced the allegations and said no cash was ever placed in the storeroom either by him or any of his family members.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
18 minutes ago
- India.com
Trumps Five Jets Remark Sparks Political Row in India; Rahul Gandhi Demands Clarity, BJP Hits Back
New Delhi: A political clash has erupted in India following US President Donald Trump's ambiguous remarks about five jets being downed during Operation Sindoor, India's military response to the April Pahalgam terror attack. The comment has prompted Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi to demand an explanation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while the BJP has accused him of harboring a "traitor's mentality." Trump, speaking at a private dinner on Friday, claimed that five fighter jets were shot down during the operation but did not specify whether the aircraft belonged to India or Pakistan. "Planes were being shot out of the air. Five, five, four or five, but I think five jets were shot down actually," Trump said. Operation Sindoor was launched by India to strike terror infrastructure across nine locations in Pakistan. These included key sites like the Jaish-e-Mohammed headquarters in Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba's base in Muridke. In the aftermath, Pakistan claimed it had shot down multiple Indian jets — including three Rafale fighters, which are among the most advanced aircraft in the Indian Air Force. India acknowledged some losses during the operation but has not disclosed a specific figure. Instead, it emphasized the strategic lessons learned from the mission. "What is important is that, not the jet being down, but why they were being down," said India's Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, while firmly denying Pakistan's assertion that six Indian jets were shot down. He added, "The good part is that we are able to understand the tactical mistake which we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and fly all our jets again, targeting at long range." Following Trump's comments, Rahul Gandhi took to Twitter (X) on Saturday, sharing the video and demanding answers from the Prime Minister. "Modi ji, what is the truth behind the five jets? The country has a right to know," he wrote in Hindi. — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) July 19, 2025 Responding sharply, BJP leader Amit Malviya pointed out that Trump had not specified the nationality of the jets and accused Rahul Gandhi of aligning with Pakistan's narrative. "Rahul Gandhi's mentality is that of a traitor. In his statement, Trump neither took the name of India nor said that those five planes belonged to India. Then why did the prince of Congress accept him as belonging to India? Why did he not accept him as belonging to Pakistan? Does he sympathise more with Pakistan than his own country?" Malviya wrote in a post on X in Hindi. He continued, "The truth is that Pakistan has not yet recovered from Operation Sindoor... but Rahul Gandhi is in pain! Whenever the country's army teaches a lesson to the enemy, Congress gets irritated. Anti-India sentiment is no longer a habit of Congress; it has become its identity. Rahul Gandhi should make it clear - is he an Indian or a spokesperson of Pakistan?"
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
18 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC bench to hear Presidential reference on timelines for bills on July 22
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President Press Trust of India New Delhi A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on July 22 the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. According to the cause list posted on the apex court website, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar will be hearing the matter. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised her powers under Article 143(1) and posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The April 8 verdict, passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to the passage of bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent or withholding of assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governor. The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict, which has evoked sharp reactions in the political spectrum. The rules prescribe that the review petitions be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers, while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of the governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for the President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon the governor to exercise constitutional options. The President said that similarly, Article 201, which prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent therefrom, does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court of India. "It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon," President Murmu said while posing 14 questions to the apex court for its opinion. The SC verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which passed the verdict, said that reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" was strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Indias Startup Boom: Nearly 76,000 Run By Women, Says Minister
New Delhi: India is witnessing a surge in women-led innovation with around 76,000 startups now being driven by women many of them from tier 2 and tier 3 cities. Union Minister Dr Jitendra Singh highlighted this growing trend, noting that empowered women and youth will be at the forefront of India's journey to becoming a developed nation by 2047, as envisioned by Prime Minister Narendra Modi under the vision of women-led development. Addressing a conference, Dr. Jitendra Singh emphasized that in the past 11 years, the Modi government has built its governance around four key pillars — the Poor, Farmers, Youth, and Women. 'Women-centric governance has not only empowered individuals, but reshaped society. What began as targeted welfare has now evolved into institutional leadership,' he told the gathering. The minister introduced the Jeevika E-Learning Management System App to make education more accessible for women. He also released 'Shashakt Mahila, Samriddh Bihar', a publication that honors and showcases the significant role of women in Bihar's development journey. Dr Singh elaborated on the PM Modi government's structured and comprehensive approach to women empowerment, built across four key pillars. The first phase, Access and Inclusion in Institutions, marked a historic shift in India's educational and military landscape. The second phase, Scientific and Technological Empowerment, has empowered women through targeted schemes such as WISE (Women in Science and Engineering), GATI (Gender Advancement for Transforming Institutions), CURIE, and the Women Scientist Programme. The third phase, Economic and Social Empowerment, has witnessed a massive scale-up of women's access to financial resources. Over 48 crore Jan Dhan accounts have been opened for women, while more than 60 per cent of Mudra Yojana beneficiaries are women entrepreneurs. The creation of over 3 crore 'Lakhpati Didis' through Self-Help Groups (SHGs) is transforming rural economies. Under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, homes registered in women's names are providing not just shelter but also financial and social dignity. The fourth phase, Workplace Reforms and Legal Sensitivity, has introduced compassionate and inclusive governance measures. These include six-month paid childcare leave for women in government service, pension rights extended to unmarried or divorced dependent daughters, and maternity leave provisions even after stillbirths. (With IANS Inputs)
