WhatsApp chats, no show at site: Probe flags Justice Varma's 'unnatural conduct'
Not filing a police complaint and quietly accepting his transfer to the Allahabad High Court were among the things deemed "unnatural" by the committee constituted to probe allegations of cash discovery at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma.Based on these findings, the three-member panel, constituted by the Supreme Court, recommended the removal of Justice Varma.The cash stash was found at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi when a fire broke out there on March 14. Justice Varma was not at his residence then. After the matter was reported to the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court transferred him from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.advertisement
Sources have told India Today that a motion will be tabled in the next session of Parliament to impeach Justice Varma. WHAT THE INQUIRY PANEL REPORT SAYSCommunication only through WhatsAppSeveral staff members of Justice Varma who were examined said they communicated with him only through WhatsApp on the intervening night of March 14-15. Details of this WhatsApp communication could not be retrieved as it is an encrypted platform.No show at spot where cash was foundThe panel found that Justice Varma and his wife did not visit the store room even once upon their return to Delhi. Justice Varma attempted to justify this by saying that he was concerned with the well-being of his family members.However, the committee found it to be odd, since anyone under such circumstances would visit the spot at least once to assess the damage.advertisementConspiracy claim falls flatJustice Varma never filed a complaint with the police despite alleging a conspiracy against him. The report said if there was indeed any conspiracy, the judge should have filed a complaint or brought it to the notice of the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India.Quietly accepted transferThe inquiry panel also found that Justice Varma quietly accepted his transfer to the Allahabad High Court on the same day it was proposed, without any questions.This was done within a few hours of the transfer being proposed, despite the fact that he had time till the next morning to communicate his decision. The report said he didn't even attempt to find out the reasons behind the transfer.OTHER EVIDENCEThere are several other aspects that also worked against Justice Varma. The report mentioned that CCTV cameras monitoring the store room were not working. Justice Varma claimed that the CCTV was controlled by the security, and he was not aware why it was not working.Moreover, in an 11-second video taken at midnight on March 15, made by Sunil Kumar, PCR in-charge, showed heaps of cash in front of the door and at the back of the store room. One person is heard saying, "Note hi note hain, dekho dikh rahein hain (The room is filled with notes, it can be seen)."Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC grants bail to former SHO in Bikru policemen ambush case
Prayagraj, The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a former station house officer of Chaubepur in Kanpur who is an accused in the Bikru ambush case in which eight policemen were killed in 2020. Vinay Kumar Tiwari had allegedly informed main accused gangster Vikas Dubey about an ensuing raid of police against him. In the ambush by the gangster, as many as eight policemen were killed on July 3, 2020. Granting bail to Tiwari, Justice Siddharth on June 16 said, "Having considered the submissions of the parties, finding force in the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial, one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side, applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial, the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail." During the course of hearing, Tiwari's counsel submitted that he is in jail since July 8, 2020. The prosecution took more than two-and-a-half years to commence the trial on March 1, 2023 after filing of the charge sheet on September 30, 2020. Before the trial court, there are 102 prosecution witnesses and about 13 have been examined. There is no credible evidence collected by the investigating officer against Tiwari to prove that he informed main accused Dubey about the police raid against him nor his relationship with the gangster was proved, the counsel argued. A number of co-accused have also been enlarged on bail, the counsel said. Opposing the bail plea of Tiwari, the state's counsel submitted that he and co- accused KK Sharma, who is also a policeman, conspired with Dubey, which led to the incident and the eight police personnel were murdered. The counsel also submitted that 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 102. The trial will conclude soon. The counsel further informed that the fifth bail application of Sharma was rejected by the co-ordinate bench of the court on May 12. On July 3, 2020, DSP Devendra Mishra and seven other Uttar Pradesh Police personnel were killed in the ambush launched by Dubey's gang in Bikru village in Kanpur when they were on their way to arrest the gangster. Following these events, Dubey was killed when he tried to escape from police custody.
Scroll.in
38 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Iran claims WhatsApp harvests data for Israel. But can a foreign government hack the app?
On Wednesday, Iranian officials urged the country's citizens to remove the messaging platform WhatsApp from their smartphones. Without providing any supporting evidence, they alleged the app gathers user information to send to Israel. WhatsApp has rejected the allegations. In a statement to Associated Press, the Meta-owned messaging platform said it was concerned 'these false reports will be an excuse for our services to be blocked at a time when people need them most'. It added that it does not track users' location nor the personal messages people are sending one another. It is impossible to independently assess the allegations, given Iran provided no publicly accessible supporting evidence. But we do know that even though WhatsApp has strong privacy and security features, it isn't impenetrable. And there is at least one country that has previously been able to penetrate it: Israel. 3 billion users WhatsApp is a free messaging app owned by Meta. With around 3 billion users worldwide and growing fast, it can send text messages, calls and media over the internet. It uses strong end-to-end encryption meaning only the sender and recipient can read messages; not even WhatsApp can access their content. This ensures strong privacy and security. Advanced cyber capability The United States is the world leader in cyber capability. This term describes the skills, technologies and resources that enable nations to defend, attack, or exploit digital systems and networks as a powerful instrument of national power. But Israel also has advanced cyber capability, ranking alongside the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and Canada. Israel has a documented history of conducting sophisticated cyber operations. This includes the widely cited Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran's nuclear program more than 15 years ago. Israeli cyber units, such as Unit 8200, are renowned for their technical expertise and innovation in both offensive and defensive operations. Seven of the top 10 global cybersecurity firms maintain R&D centers in Israel, and Israeli startups frequently lead in developing novel offensive and defensive cyber tools. Historical precedent Israeli firms have repeatedly been linked to hacking WhatsApp accounts, most notably through the Pegasus spyware developed by Israeli-based cyber intelligence company NSO Group. In 2019, it exploited WhatsApp vulnerabilities to compromise 1,400 users, including journalists, activists and politicians. Last month, a US federal court ordered the NSO Group to pay WhatsApp and Meta nearly US$170 million in damages for the hack. Another Israeli company, Paragon Solutions, also recently targeted nearly 100 WhatsApp accounts. The company used advanced spyware to access private communications after they had been de-encrypted. These kinds of attacks often use ' spearphishing '. This is distinct from regular phishing attacks, which generally involve an attacker sending malicious links to thousands of people. Instead, spearphishing involves sending targeted, deceptive messages or files to trick specific individuals into installing spyware. This grants attackers full access to their devices – including de-encrypted WhatsApp messages. A spearphishing email might appear to come from a trusted colleague or organisation. It might ask the recipient to urgently review a document or reset a password, leading them to a fake login page or triggering a malware download. 'Spearfishing' To avoid spearphishing, people should scrutinise unexpected emails or messages, especially those conveying a sense of urgency, and never click suspicious links or download unknown attachments. Hovering the mouse cursor over a link will reveal the name of the destination. Suspicious links are those with strange domain names and garbled text that has nothing to do with the purported sender. Simply hovering without clicking is not dangerous. Enable two-factor authentication, keep your software updated, and verify requests coming through trusted channels. Regular cybersecurity training also helps users spot and resist these targeted attacks.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Devise framework for rehabilitation of survivors of industrial accidents in Tamil Nadu: Madras High Court
Taking a serious view of frequent fire accidents in fireworks units in Virudhunagar district, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has asked the State to evolve a structured rehabilitation framework for victims families, including educational support for children, widow pension, and housing security, so as to address the long-term impact of such tragedies. Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that the repeated pattern of accidents — 131 deaths and 146 serious injuries between 2019 and 2023 in the region — only suggested a chronic absence of inspection, enforcement, and accountability. The regulatory bodies, despite having knowledge of the hazardous nature of the work and the vulnerability of the workers, had failed to discharge their obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect the right to life of citizens working in high-risk industries. This lapse cannot be termed accidental. It is structural and ongoing. The court observed manufacture, possession, and sale of fireworks were regulated under the Explosives Act, 1884, and the Explosives Rules, 2008. The District Magistrate or the District Revenue Officer was empowered to issue licences only where the total quantity of explosives, including raw materials, processed material, and finished goods, did not exceed 15 kg at a time. Quantities ranging from 15 kg to 500 kg fell under the jurisdiction of the Controller of Explosives and those above 500 kg under the Chief Controller of Explosives. However, it had come to light that the DROs had issued licences beyond their jurisdiction. Such licences were patently invalid, the court observed. Sivakasi, known as the 'fireworks capital of India', contributed over 90% of the country's production. Its dry climate, minimal rainfall, and humidity made it ideal for fireworks, but the conditions heightened the risk of explosions. Virudhunagar district was classified as an Aspirational District by NITI Aayog, reflecting persistent underdevelopment. The area suffered from critical groundwater scarcity, negligible agricultural activity, and limited industrial diversification. Workers had no alternative but to work in these dangerous factories, fully aware of the risks. These were not choices made freely, but under compulsion of survival, the court observed. According to the judge, there is widespread non-compliance and endangerment of lives. Whenever an accident occurs, investigations into such accidents are conducted in a mechanical fashion. The FIRs registered in 2019 and 2020 remain pending in 2024. There is no engagement of explosive experts, no forensic reports, and no meaningful determination of the cause. The report of a committee, headed by retired judge K. Kannan, formed by the National Green Tribunal to look into the cause of Achankulam accident in Sivakasi, found subleasing of licensed premises, overcrowding, untrained workers, chemical mixing in open areas, and locked exits as major causes of the blast. The cumulative effect of illegal licensing, absence of safety measures, ineffective inspections, and casual investigations point to a breach of Article 21. The State is liable for failure to protect life in hazardous employment. The court was hearing the petition filed by four Scheduled Caste women who lost their husbands in a fire accident at a fireworks unit in Ettakkapatti in Sivakasi in 2014. Though ₹5 lakh to each of the victims was recommended, the government in 2015 sanctioned only ₹1 lakh as ex gratia compensation. The petitioners sought the release of the balance amount and a suitable employment to a family member each. The court enhanced the compensation amount to ₹10 lakh each and directed the State to pay the compensation amount in eight weeks. Pointing out the reasons, the court observed the deceased were engaged in the fireworks industry, which was not only classified as a 'hazardous occupation', but also regulated as a dangerous operation. The workers were allowed to operate in unprotected environments, with no formal training, no protective gear, and no regulated safeguards. The working conditions made accidents not just probable but inevitable. The court pointed to the failure of the State in discharging its Statutory and Constitutional duties. The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Safai Karamchari Andolan to enhance the compensation. The victims' families were from socially and economically weaker sections, with dependent children and no sustainable alternative income. The effect of the accident was not only immediate but perpetual, warranting compensation that reflected both the economic and human dimension of the loss. The State could not escape responsibility where its agencies had failed to prevent an accident in a dangerous industry. The award of compensation was not penal but declaratory of the constitutional breach, and ₹10 lakh per family was a fair, just, and proportionate recognition of the same, the court observed. The judge directed the Director of Industrial Safety and Health to ensure enforcement of safety norms under the Explosives Act and the Explosives Rules, the Factories Act and the Factories Rules, including compliance with the licensing limits, mandatory appointment of safety personnel, periodic inspections, and safety training. The safety of workers in hazardous industries should be treated as a matter of utmost priority. The Chief Controller of Explosives, PESO, Nagpur, shall take necessary steps to scrutinise the licensing practices in Sivakasi and other firework clusters and take appropriate action wherever licences were found to be issued in excess of the legal limits prescribed under the Explosives Act and Rules, the court directed. The Director General of Police must ensure fire accidents involving explosives are investigated by personnel equipped with adequate technical knowledge, with due assistance from forensic experts and in accordance with the mandates of the Explosives Act. Severe understaffing in the Industrial Safety and Health Department made it nearly impossible to conduct regular inspections, enforce statutory safety measures or respond in time to violations. Without adequate technical personnel and supervisory infrastructure, compliance could not be expected. The judged expressed clear expectation that in cases where it was established, upon enquiry or investigation, that the accident occurred due to fault of the employer, including non-compliance with the licensing conditions, safety protocols or subleasing of premises, the licensing authority should take appropriate action, including cancellation of the licence. The responsibility to regulate hazardous industries was statutory, not discretionary.
