Cash At Judge's House: SC Rejects Application To Reveal Report Of In-House Panel
Cash At Judge's House: The Supreme Court has rejected an application seeking a copy of the report of the court-appointed in-house panel, which was formed to enquire into the alleged cash recovery at the house of former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma. The application was filed under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, reportedly by an advocate from Maharashtra.
This stems from the incident when a pile of burnt cash was discovered allegedly at the residence of Justice Varma in Delhi after a fire on March 14. Following the incident, a three-member committee was constituted to conduct an inquiry.
According to the news agency IANS, the top court registry, the apex court registry, also refused to reveal a copy of the communication written by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister in this matter.
After the allegations of cash discovery, Justice Varma was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had informed in a statement that then CJI Khanna had written to the President and the PM, and forwarded the report of the three-member committee.
"Chief Justice of India, in terms of the In-House Procedure, has written to Hon'ble the President of India and Hon'ble the Prime Minister of India enclosing therewith copy of the 3-Member Committee report dated 03.05.2025 along with the letter/response dated 06.05.2025 received from Mr Justice Yashwant Varma," the press release of the apex court said.
Later, a two-judge bench of the apex court refused a plea seeking criminal prosecution of Justice Varma.
"There was an in-house inquiry report. It has been forwarded to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India for action. If you are seeking a writ of mandamus, you have to first make a representation to those authorities before which the issue is pending," a bench headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka told advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, as per IANS.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
20 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
News18
26 minutes ago
- News18
Supreme Court Sets Aside Patna HC Order Allowing Blanket Use Of Narco Test On All Accused
Last Updated: An order of the Patna High Court had allowed the police to subject all accused persons to narco-analysis tests during the course of investigation. The Supreme Court on Monday held that an accused person does not have an indefeasible right to undergo a narcoanalysis test, while at the same time clarifying that such a test may be permitted at an appropriate stage of trial upon application, provided the Court is satisfied that there is free consent and adequate safeguards in place. The Court made the observation in an Appeal challenging an order of the Patna High Court, which had allowed the police to subject all accused persons, including the Appellant, to narco-analysis tests during the course of investigation. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, stating that it was contrary to the principles laid down in Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010), where the apex court had held that involuntary subjection to scientific techniques such as narco-analysis, lie detector, and brain mapping violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 'The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narcoanalysis test at an appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to add, that the appropriate stage for such a test to be conducted is when the accused is exercising his right to lead evidence in a trial," the Court observed. However, the Bench emphasised that such a right is not absolute, and that any application made by an accused must be judicially assessed, taking into account factors such as free will, voluntariness, procedural safeguards, and the overall circumstances of the case. Facts of the Case The family members of the wife got an FIR lodged on August 24, 2022 under Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498(A), 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, suspecting foul play and alleging that the accused made repeated demands of dowry and used to beat the victim since the marriage on December 11, 2020. The Appellant contended the acceptance of such a submission by the High Court was in direct contravention of the exposition of law laid down by this court in the Selvi case, wherein it was observed that forceful subjection of an individual to techniques, such as the narco-analysis test, violates personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, acting as amicus curiae, pointed out that there has been a divergence of views taken by High Courts on the issue as to whether a narco-analysis test can be claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Given the suspect nature of a report of narco-analysis, he said that this position must be clarified. Court Decries Blanket Testing of All Accused Criticising the blanket direction of the Patna High Court that allowed narco-tests to be conducted on all accused persons based on a submission made by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the Supreme Court noted that such an order could not have been passed while dealing with a regular bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 'We fail to understand how such an endeavour was accepted by the High Court while adjudicating an application for regular bail. It is settled law that while entertaining such an application, the Court must confine itself to considerations such as the nature of the crime, allegations, evidence, period of custody, and possibility of tampering with evidence," the Bench said. The Court also took note of the suspect evidentiary value of narco-analysis tests and made it clear that results of such tests, even if voluntarily undergone, cannot by themselves form the sole basis for conviction. 'A report of a voluntary narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction of an accused person," the Court held while answering the second legal issue involved in the matter. Right to Lead Evidence Not a Justification The State had attempted to justify the High Court's direction by arguing that the accused had a right to lead evidence in their defence, and a voluntary narco-test was a part of that right. Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court categorically held that such a view was untenable in light of the principles laid down in Selvi and the inherently unreliable nature of the technique. 'It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature," the Court remarked, adding that the Rajasthan High Court's earlier view to the contrary could not be sustained. Assistance by Amicus and Legal Representation Given the complexity of constitutional and procedural issues involved, the Court had appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal as Amicus Curiae. The Appellant was represented by AOR Mithilesh Kumar Singh, while the Respondent-State was represented by Additional Standing Counsel Anshul Narayan. The Court rejected a submission by the state government that since modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour, the High Court was correct in accepting the submission that a narco analysis test of all accused persons will be conducted. 'While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21," the Bench said. Conclusively, the Court set aside the impugned Order dated 9th November 2023 passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 71293 of 2023 and allowed the appeal. First Published: June 10, 2025, 13:39 IST News india Supreme Court Sets Aside Patna HC Order Allowing Blanket Use Of Narco Test On All Accused
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Bengaluru gold smuggling case: After ED and CBI probes, Kannada actor Ranya Rao now faces I-T investigation
The Income Tax (I-T) department will investigate the wealth of Kannada actor Ranya Rao, who was arrested in a gold smuggling case, with a special court for economic offences in Bengaluru Monday allowing its application to question her in prison. The special court dismissed the objections raised by Rao's lawyer and permitted the I-T department to question her in prison from 10 am to 5 pm between June 11 and June 13. The assistant director of I-T (Investigations) applied last week seeking court permission to record the statement of Rao, 33, at the Bengaluru Central Prison regarding her earnings from alleged gold smuggling activities. The I-T department argued that the actor, who was arrested on March 3 from the Bengaluru International Airport for smuggling 14.2 kg of gold worth Rs 12.56 crore, was involved in the smuggling activity by using resources generated from 'unexplained sources and cash'. It sought to probe the unexplained sources by recording her statement in prison over a three-day period. B S Girish, the counsel for Rao, argued that the provisions of the Customs Act and the I-T Act are distinct, and so she cannot be compelled to give a statement under the provisions of the I-T Act, which would be contrary to Article 22 of the Constitution. The special public prosecutor of the I-T department, however, argued that I-T authorities are empowered to investigate and that she needs to be probed about the huge cash she allegedly mobilised and circulated for acquiring and selling gold from Dubai. 'The objections of the accused No.1 as to the statement U/s.131(1) of the Act is contrary to Article 22 of the Indian Constitution cannot be accepted as the Act very much permits the recording of statement as a part of investigation, in view of the applicant being vested with powers of a civil court,' the special court ruled Monday. 'The other objections as to the Customs Act and IT Act being distinct enactments in itself will not come in the way to permit the applicant/Department to investigate into the allegations against the accused No.1 on the basis of credible information,' the special court said. Ranya Rao gold smuggling case timeline On May 3, The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) arrested Rao from the airport on her arrival from Dubai with concealed on her body. On March 9, the DRI arrested Telugu actor Tarun Konduru, a US passport holder, after he was identified as an alleged accomplice of Rao in the gold smuggling racket. On March 26, the DRI arrested Sahil Jain, 27, a hawala dealer and associate of Rao, who allegedly received the gold smuggled by the actors and transferred funds through the hawala route to Dubai for the purchase of more gold. The DRI alleged that Jain played a central role in disposing of 49.6 kg of gold worth Rs 40.13 crore, smuggled from Dubai by Rao, between November 2024 and February 2025. It also claimed that Jain transferred Rs 39.39 crore of Rao's earnings to Dubai. Rao is the stepdaughter of the senior Karnataka IPS officer K Ramachandra Rao. She is alleged to have used airport protocol services available to her father to escape customs checks and detection at the Bengaluru airport on arrival from Dubai. The DRI also alleged that Rao and her associates smuggled 100 kg of gold in the 2024-25 period. It said Jain is part of a sophisticated smuggling network operating in India and abroad. A prosecution complaint was filed against him by the agency in a Kolkata court on March 5, 202, in a case involving the smuggling of 41.64 kg of gold. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) are also investigating the gold smuggling case from criminal and money laundering angles and have registered cases. The ED recently carried out searches on properties, including offices of an education trust belonging to Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara on the grounds that there had been monetary transactions between the trust and Rao. The trust, headquartered in Tumakuru in Karnataka, is alleged to have made a payment of Rs 40 lakh towards her credit card bills. Courts in Bengaluru granted Rao, Konduru, and Jain statutory bail after the DRI failed to file prosecution complaints (chargesheets) against them within 60 days of their arrest. However, the accused trio remain in prison on account of the Union Department of Revenue invoking the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974, against them on April 22. The COFEPOSA Act allows the preventive detention of persons for a period of up to one year. Last month, her mother H P Rohini filed a habeas corpus plea in the Karnataka High Court over the continued detention of her daughter. The matter was, however, adjourned by two weeks on June 3 after the court was informed that the advisory panel for confirming the COFEPOSA detention order of Rao was yet to meet.
