Justice Varma plea 'irrelevant' amid impeachment motion, say legal experts
After the Supreme Court's in-house committee recommended Justice Varma's removal following its probe, the focus now shifts to the Lok Sabha, where an impeachment motion for his removal is set to be introduced."When the judge admits that money was found in his house, the rest becomes irrelevant," said a legal expert, indicating that the parliamentary inquiry will centre on these admissions. Despite this, Justice Varma "has the right to be heard by the Parliament Inquiry Committee," which could potentially clear his name.Explaining the impeachment process in Parliament, retired Justice Siddharth Mridul told India Today TV, "If there is an impeachment motion, that motion and the committee that is appointed to conduct an inquiry clearly provide all the steps that need to be followed. The impeachment motion process is to take action against a judge who refuses to resign."Justice Mridul pointed out that the in-house inquiry committee's findings are akin to a preliminary probe report, meant "to satisfy the CJI that there is cause to investigate the judge."Meanwhile, legal experts questioned the reasoning behind Varma's approach to the Supreme Court, with one stating, "I don't see why this petition has come to court. If the judge wants to clear his name, he has to go through the procedure provided by the Constitution."Dave found it "inconceivable for the Supreme Court to interfere in Parliament's inquiry process at such an early stage." Emphasising that there is no connection between an in-house inquiry and a parliamentary inquiry, Dave said, "MPs could have initiated impeachment based on the video that surfaced."Serious questions have been raised regarding police conduct in the case. Observers noted "serious, gross lapses by the police" and asked, "Why was the money allowed to disappear?"advertisement"Corruption is rampant in Judiciary -- nobody wants to publicly discuss it," said Dave, pointing to the need for systemic reforms.As the impeachment process unfolds, the potential consequences are significant. "If Parliament's committee gives a clean chit, then that will be final," Dave said, highlighting the ultimate authority of Parliament in judicial impeachment matters. The decision now rests with Parliament, said legal experts, with Justice Mridul saying the in-house panel report is now "irrelevant" as only Parliament, and not the courts, can decide the fate of judges.- EndsMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Guaranteed win through EVMs': Sanjay Raut echoes Sharad Pawar's '160 seats' claim; says same people approached Uddhav Thackeray twice
Sanjay Raut (File photo) NEW DELHI: Echoing Sharad Pawar 's '160 seats' claim, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut on Sunday alleged the same two unnamed individuals the NCP (SP) supremo mentioned, had also approached Uddhav Thackeray twice — first during the 2024 Lok Sabha polls and later ahead of the Maharashtra assembly elections. Also Read: Sharad Pawar drops bombshell, claims 2 people offered 'guaranteed victory' in 160 Maharashtra assembly seats "Sharad Pawar said some people met him before the (Maharashtra) polls. The same set of people also met (Sena (UBT) chief) Uddhav Thackeray during the Lok Sabha (polls). We told them we believe in democracy and will win the Lok Sabha elections for sure, looking at the atmosphere in the country," Raut told the media, according to news agency PTI. "When they approached us again, we told them that as the opposition secured an overwhelming success (in Lok Sabha elections), we will come to power in Vidhan Sabha (assembly elections) too. They asked us to assign 60-65 difficult seats and promised victory through EVMs. However, Thackeray refused, saying we don't feel the need to do it." He further recalled being "warned" by the persons that "those in power" (BJP-led Mahayuti) had prepared a "plan" through EVMs and electoral rolls to win. The BJP won 132 seats in the assembly elections with allies Shiv Sena and NCP adding 57 and 41 constituencies, respectively, to the Mahayuti tally. On the other hand, the MVA won only 46 seats (Shiv Sena (UBT) 20, Congress 16, and NCP (SP) 10). Pawar on Saturday caused a flutter in political circles with his remarks. The senior politician stated he introduced the two individuals to the Lok Sabha leader of the opposition and Congress MP, Rahul Gandhi. Gandhi on Thursday made explosive allegation of a "huge criminal fraud" in polls through "collusion" between the BJP and the Election Commission, citing an analysis in a constituency in Congress-ruled Karnataka, calling it "a crime against the Constitution". The following day, he alleged the Election Commission and the BJP "colluded to steal" the Lok Sabha elections from the people, and there was "vote theft" in at least three states. Maharashtra chief minister and BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis has questioned the timing of Pawar's statement, which he dismissed as a "Salim-Javed script."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Can teachers opt out? What Mahmoud v. Taylor means for freedom of belief in schools
Supreme Court rules in Mahmoud v. Taylor on parental opt-out rights in U.S. schools. (AI Image) In a significant decision on education and religious rights, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case involving the Montgomery County Public School District in Maryland. The case centred on whether parents could opt their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ+-themed storybooks due to religious objections. The 6–3 ruling sided with parents who argued that their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion had been violated when the district removed an opt-out provision. The Court found that failing to provide such an option imposed an undue burden on religious freedom. Details of the case and the parties involved The case was brought by a group of parents from various religious backgrounds, including Ukrainian Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim communities. These parents objected to the inclusion of books featuring LGBTQ+ themes in the primary school curriculum for children aged five to eleven. They requested advance notice of when the books would be used in class and the ability to withdraw their children from those lessons. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Treatment That Might Help You Against Knee Pain Knee pain| search ads Find Now Undo Montgomery County Public Schools had introduced a broader curriculum incorporating storybooks that addressed race, gender, sexual orientation, and other identities, stating the goal was to foster inclusivity and awareness. The school district argued that the inclusion of diverse narratives aimed to affirm the existence and rights of various identities. Legal arguments and constitutional basis The petitioning parents relied on previous Supreme Court precedents, such as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Wisconsin v. Yoder, both of which supported parental authority in the religious upbringing of their children. They contended that without the ability to opt out, the school was compelling their children to participate in lessons conflicting with their religious beliefs. The school district maintained that it was not infringing upon religious freedom but promoting a diverse and respectful learning environment. It argued that allowing opt-outs could undermine the purpose of the curriculum and exclude certain student identities from classroom recognition. Supreme Court ruling and its provisions The Supreme Court held that the school district's actions constituted an undue burden on the parents' religious rights under the First Amendment. The ruling mandates that schools must provide parents with advance notice of when such materials will be used and allow them to withdraw their children from those specific sessions if they object on religious grounds. Broader implications and future considerations Assistant Professor of Law Jeremiah Chin explained that the ruling may have far-reaching implications. He noted that while the decision appears narrow, it follows a trend in recent Court rulings that expand the Free Exercise Clause, allowing individuals increased authority to challenge government actions on religious grounds. The case also raises questions about the rights of children, though the ruling focused exclusively on the conflict between parents and the school district. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
Decades of separatism crumble as Jammu & Kashmir leaders join national mainstream
This shift began earlier this year, with more than 15 people submitting sworn affidavits and placing public advertisements in newspapers to declare their commitment to India and its Constitution.
