Alleged cash discovery: Why did you wait, Supreme Court asks Justice Varma
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma why he appeared before a committee constituted to probe an alleged cash discovery at his official residence in New Delhi if he felt that it had no legal power to investigate the matter."Why did you not challenge when the committee was appointed? Why did you wait? Why did you appear before the committee? Why did you not approach the Supreme Court immediately? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first," a division bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta verbally asked Varma's counsel."Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past," the bench said. Varma's counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal , responded saying that this cannot be held against Justice Varma "I (Varma) appeared because I thought the (inquiry) committee would find out who the cash belongs to," Sibal said.Bundles of burnt banknotes had allegedly been recovered from an outhouse of Justice Varma's residence in Delhi after a fire incident in March. Justice Varma, a judge at the Delhi High Court at the time, had claimed ignorance about the cash. Neither has Justice Varma disputed the fire incident nor the recovery of cash, Justice Datta said, adding: "Neither can the fire incident be disbelieved, nor can the recovery of cash." Justice Datta told the counsel that if Varma was challenging the procedure, then he would have to satisfy the court that the procedure adopted was against the Constitution.The development took place during the hearing of a plea filed by Justice Varma challenging the Supreme Court-appointed in-house committee report indicting him over the recovery of the cash. In his plea, Justice Varma has also sought a declaration that the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for his removal as a high court judge be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires.The bench on Monday pointed out shortcomings in the plea filed by Justice Varma. "This petition should not have been filed like this. Please see the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is the supreme court as your grievance is against the process mentioned."The bench also objected to the Union of India being made a respondent. "This petition should not have been filed so casually, maybe it missed your notice also. There are three respondents, your main grievance is against the Supreme Court. Union of India not required. Supreme Court, through the Registrar, confidential, not required. Main is, Respondent No. 2, through whom the Supreme Court is to be represented, Secretary General," Justice Datta said.The bench posted the matter for resumed hearing on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Denial discriminatory': HC directs CRPF to promote HIV/AIDS +ve woman staffer
Stating that the denial of promotion to an HIV/AIDS positive woman employee of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was 'discriminatory', the Gujarat High Court has directed the CRPF to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector (Ministerial), while also declaring as 'ultra vires' the provisions of a 2008 Standing Order and the 2011 CRPF Assistant Commandant Recruitment Rules that were cited in denying promotion to the petitioner. A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray, in its August 5 order, noted that the denial or discontinuation or unfair treatment in relation to employment is 'clearly prohibited' under the HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Act, 2017. While stating that the Act has been enacted to ensure equal opportunity of employment and with the need to protect and secure the human rights of persons who are HIV/AIDS positive, the court directed the CRPF to grant promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date her juniors were promoted. The court said, 'The petitioner shall be entitled to full benefits including continuity of service to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) from the date the juniors to the petitioners were/was promoted. The petitioner shall also be considered for promotion to the (subsequent) post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) by placing her in the gradation list along with her juniors and a special DPC (Department Promotional Committee) be conducted to consider the candidature of the petitioner to the said post…' Granting time of two months, the court said, 'Upon consideration, if the petitioner is found fit on all other aspects, she shall be given promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) from the date the junior(s) to her have been promoted against the vacancies of the year 2024-25… (The respondent is) required to revise pay and re-fix the pay-scale of the petitioner from the date of her entitlement to promotion on the post of Inspector (Ministerial) and further on the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) and shall pay the arrears including all consequential benefits to the said posts.' The bench considered the arguments put forth by the petitioner as well as the advocates representing the respondents and stated that the case 'presented a very sorry state of affairs at the ends of the respondent authorities including the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in perpetuating discrimination by not bringing necessary amendments in the Standing Order No.04/2008 and the recruitment/appointment Rules, which prescribe blanket restriction for promotion or appointment to persons who are not kept in medical category Shape I, specifically HIV/AID +ve personnel.' The court order stated that the court has reached 'an irresistible conclusion' that the petitioner has been discriminated in denial of promotion to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of her entitlement on the premise that she was in Shape III category in the medical report dated April 16, 2015. The petitioner had contended that she was promoted to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) only on August 23, 2019, and therefore also denied the subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial). The court noted that 'no efforts seem to have been made' to bring the Standing Order and the Rules governing the services of CRPF personnel in line with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 so as to remove 'discrimination' against the 'protected persons' within the meaning of the Act. Declaring the 2008 Standing Order as well as the Rule 5 of the Central Reserve Police Force, Assistant Commandant (Ministerial), Group 'A' Post, Recruitment Rules, 2011, as 'ultra vires', the court said that it was 'contrary to the National HIV Counseling and Testing Guidelines, 2024 as also discriminatory and arbitrary, being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.' The court order stated that the clauses are 'required to be suitably amended to remove any kind of discrimination, directly or indirectly, expressly or by effect which denies or withholds any benefit, opportunity or advantage from any person or category of persons being HIV/AIDS +ve person(s)… by bringing suitable amendments as early as possible. For the purpose of medical assessment of HIV/AIDS +ve person.' 'SHAPE-1' signifies that a combatised serving personnel is fully fit for all duties. The acronym SHAPE represents: S (Psychological), H (Hearing), A (Appendages), P (Physical Capacity), and E (Eyesight). A SHAPE-1 rating indicates that all these aspects are assessed as being in good condition. Functional capacity for duties in the CPF under each factor is graded in the scale from 1 to 5, indicating declining functional efficiency and increasing employability limitations.
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Retd SC judge Oka: Did Justice Murlidhar face consequences for decisions during Delhi riots
Noting that dissent by judges while adhering to Constitutional morality comes at a price, retired Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka on Wednesday publicly asked if Justice (retired) S Muralidhar had to 'face consequences' for his 'bold decisions' during the 2020 Delhi riots. At the same event in the capital, themed on morality in judiciary, retired Delhi HC judge Justice Kailash Gambhir drew a contrast between former CJIs D Y Chandrachud and M N Venkatachaliah. He said that while one 'violated' the Constitutional scheme of separation of powers by inviting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a Ganesh Puja at his residence, the other had refused to meet the then PM, Rajiv Gandhi, when his elevation from the Karnataka HC to SC was underway. Justice Chandrachud had defended himself over the visit last year, saying there was 'absolutely nothing wrong for the simple reason that these are continuing meetings between the judiciary and the executive, even at a social level'. Justice Oka, delivering the keynote address at the event in New Delhi, said: 'Judges are not bound by traditional concepts of morality, they are bound by the oath of the constitution. We talk about dissenting judgements… We talk of Justice HR Khanna… he gave dissenting judgments because he was bound by his oath, not bound by what politicians feel or people in power feel or what the common man feels… One example I can't resist, it pertains to Delhi… a midnight bench was constituted (of Justices S Muralidhar and Anup Bhambhani), some victims of riots were stranded and the bench gave audience at midnight or a little past midnight and not only ensured that they were given safe passage, but also ensured that compliance is reported. We often talk about sacrifices made by the three judges in Kesavananda Bharati, but some day we also have to consider whether the judges who were in the midnight bench during the 2020 Delhi riots) met with consequences of their bold decisions given in the four corners of the Constitution. So when we discuss morality, we have to discuss this also… these judgements were delivered because the judges were not influenced by the opinion of the ruling party.' Justice Muralidhar, who retired in 2023 and is now practising as an advocate, was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab & Haryana High Court in February 2020 after questioning the Delhi Police's conduct in the riots and directing it to register FIRs against those who made hate speeches. Meanwhile, Justice Gambhir noted recent instances of 'judicial impropriety'. He spoke about Justice Yashwant Varma, at whose residence cash was found, and Justice Shekhar Yadav, who had made communal statements in a public address. He said apart from financial corruption, the judiciary has also been under attack owing to judges' 'temptation for post-retirement jobs'.
News18
40 minutes ago
- News18
Bihar SIR Row: Supreme Court Asks For Election Commission's Response On 'Removal' Of 65 L Voters
The SC instructed the ECI to submit its reply by August 9, specifying the reasons for each deletion, such as death, permanent migration, or duplication The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide a comprehensive response to a petition seeking detailed reasons for the removal of over 65 lakh voters from Bihar's draft electoral rolls. This petition was filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which has expressed concerns about the transparency and integrity of the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) process preceding the upcoming assembly elections. A bench headed by Justice Surya Kant instructed the ECI to submit its reply by August 9, specifying the reasons for each deletion, such as death, permanent migration, or duplication. The ECI had previously released a draft roll comprising 7.24 crore voters but excluded more than 65 lakh names, citing various reasons, including 22.34 lakh deletions due to death and 36.28 lakh due to permanent absence or migration. In a prior hearing, the Supreme Court advised the ECI to focus on 'en masse inclusion" rather than 'en masse exclusion", underscoring the significance of every citizen's right to vote. The court's order to disclose detailed, booth-wise information aims to facilitate thorough cross-verification by political parties and the public during the claims and objections period, which lasts until September 1. Opposition parties have raised concerns that the revision process might result in the wrongful disenfranchisement of numerous eligible voters, especially those from marginalised communities. The case is set for further hearing on August 12. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
