Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption.
Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation.
Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge.
But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted.
According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient.
A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office.
Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office.
Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row.
Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case.
Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said.
A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament.
In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it.
According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought.
The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist".
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report.
"So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said.
The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided.
"As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said.
Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard.
He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion.
Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12.
A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse.
Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement.
The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work.
Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned.
Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Kerala seeks Centre's nod to kill problematic wild animals straying into human habitations
The Kerala government has written to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change seeking permission to kill problematic wild animals straying into human habitations and pose a threat to people's life and property. In line with a recent Cabinet decision, the State has sought immediate action to delegate powers vested with the Union government in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, to the Chief Wildlife Warden, and to 'simplify the related procedures, protocols, guidelines, advisories and so on' to eliminate animals, particularly those included in Schedule I of the Act. The government had earlier raised multiple requests to amend the law, declare wild pigs as vermin, and to shift bonnet macaque from Schedule I to Schedule II to enable management and mitigation measures at the 'State-level in a site-specific manner.' While these requests are yet to be considered, the State, has used to considerable effect, the provision of the Wildlife (Protection) Act to delegate the authority held by the Chief Wildlife Warden to Honorary Wildlife Wardens to kill wild boars that venture out of forests into human-inhabited areas and pose danger to society. While the measure has been found to be 'quite effective' in managing human-wild boar conflicts, the government recently decided to request the Centre to provide/extend such powers for other species that create problems in human habitations outside forests.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Kerala Governor takes dig at CPI over 'Bharat Mata' issue
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar criticised CPI, the second largest party in ruling LDF, that hoisted national flags and raised 'Bharat Mata ki jai' slogans as a mark of protest against the use of Bharat Mata portrait at Raj Bhavan during an environment day event. In an apparent reference to the CPI campaign but without naming them, Arlekar, at an event here said, "Those who never thought of 'Bharat Mata' are saying 'Bharat Mata ki jai'. That is a good contribution. I appreciate that." At the same time, the Governor said that 'Bharat Mata' cannot be an issue for debate. "It cannot be an issue for discussion. How can it be? 'Bharat Mata' is above everything and beyond everything," he said. Arekar further said that while everyone may have their different thoughts and ideologies, "we are all brothers and sisters, that particular thing has to be there in our minds". On the other hand, CPI state secretary M V Govindan said that there is no concept of 'Bharat Mata' as it is not there in the Constitution. Meanwhile, the CPI said it was currently not going to have a discussion with its ally CPI on the issue. "We do not think now is the time for a discussion on that," CPI state secretary Binoy Viswom said. The row was kicked off when the Raj Bhavan decided to use a 'Bharat Mata' portrait for the Environment Day event, resulting in it being boycotted by State Agriculture Minister and CPI leader P Prasad. He claimed that the portrait was the one used by the RSS. He had also said that the portrait was not authorised as the official version by the Constitution or the Indian government. Following Prasad's boycott of the event, the Governor had issued a statement saying that "Whatever be the pressure, from whichever quarters, there will be no compromise whatsoever on Bharat Mata." Subsequently, the CPI had announced that it would hoist the national flag, which is the symbol of Bharat Mata, at all its branches on Saturday and would plant saplings in front of it as a mark of protest against the Governor's stand.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
High Court reiterates creation of ‘leaders parks' for installation of statues instead of public places
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has reiterated the creation of 'leaders parks' across Tamil Nadu for installation of new statues and relocation of existing statues for which permission was already granted. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete observed that instead of installing statues of leaders in public places, the court had elaborately considered the issue and directed the government to identify lands for creation of the required number of 'leaders parks' across the State. Accordingly, permissions have already been granted and statues are to be relocated in the 'leaders parks'. The formation of 'leaders parks' would be of much benefit to youth as they can learn about the ideas and ideologies of the leaders. Instead of making concrete efforts for the formation of 'leaders parks', the government cannot issue orders granting permission to install statues in public places, the court observed. On account of heavy traffic congestion and other mitigating factors, the general public are put to hardship in the event of granting such permission to install statues in public places. The rights of citizens in all respects guaranteed under the Constitution are to be protected by the State, the court observed. The Supreme Court had passed an order directing no further installation of statue or construction of any structure on public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places are to be permitted. A Division Bench of Madras High Court also passed orders. When the Supreme Court passed an order not to grant permission to install statues in public places, the State government cannot pass orders granting such permission, the court observed. The court was hearing a petition filed by Palsamy of Tirunelveli district who had sought a direction to restrain the authorities from installing a bronze statue and name board of the former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi near the entrance of Valliyoor daily vegetable market in Valliyoor in Tirunelveli district. The State submitted that instruction had been issued to the Collector not to install the statue of the former Chief Minister and action will be taken to withdraw the G.O. issued. The court posted the matter for reporting compliance on July 16.
