Justice Yashwant Varma moves Supreme Court against panel report
Justice Varma has challenged a subsequent communication by Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) to the President and Prime Minister recommending his removal from the office of judge as unconstitutional.
The May 3 report of the three-judge committee had been confidentially forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister by Chief Justice Khanna days before his retirement on May 13 after Justice Varma had refused to voluntarily resign from office.
Justice Varma's case has not been numbered or listed for hearing in the Supreme Court, and is the first by a sitting High Court judge. It comes days before the Monsoon session of the Parliament, which may see the introduction of the removal motion.
Justice Varma has contended that the formation of the committee was not based on any statute or the Constitution, thus had no legal basis to recommend his removal from a constitutional office. He contended that the reports were filled with inferences. The Judge said he was subject to intense media speculation and media trial. He was not given a fair hearing and an opportunity to respond to the allegations levelled by witnesses, amounting to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Judge said key questions like the source of cash and what caused the fire were not addressed in the committee report. The judge argued that the letter for his removal was forwarded by the then CJI within hours of receiving the inquiry committee report and without having a personal interaction with him.
The report of the committee, comprising Justices Sheel Nagu, G.S. Sandhawalia and Anu Sivaraman, concluded that Justice Varma and his family members were in 'covert or active control' of access into the storeroom where the stacks of half-burnt cash was found. It had noted that the currency notes 'seen and found during the process of dousing of fire' were 'highly suspicious items' and not of a small value. They could not have been placed in the storeroom without the tacit or active consent of Justice Varma or his family, the report had submitted.
The inquiry committee had refused to accept the version of the judge that he was a target of a conspiracy. It said it would be 'well-nigh impossible' to 'plant' currency in a high security residential premises of a sitting judge, the panel had reasoned.
The inquiry panel had said 'strong inferential evidence' established that the burnt currency was removed by Justice Varma's trusted staff from the storeroom during the early hours of March 15.
The decision to form the three-judge fact-finding committee was based on a preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on March 21 recommending a 'deeper probe' into the allegations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Brinda Karat voices concern against Chhattisgarh's approval for mining in Hasdeo region
In a letter to Union Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav, senior Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat has opposed a recent Chhattisgarh government's approval of diversion of a large forested land in the Hasdeo region of the State for mining purposes. In her letter, the former MP and Special Invitee, CPI(M) Central Committee, wrote there was no public interest involved in the project and it would only lead to exploitation of mineral resources for private gain. A recommendation letter dated June 26, in which the Forest department has approved the proposal for diversion of forest land for non-forestry purpose — coal excavation work in the Kete Extension Coal Block Open Mine Project of the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam or RNUVL, surfaced online on August 4. In the letter uploaded on government's PARIVESH website, Forest department official from Surguja district Abhishek Jogawat has based the recommendation on a survey done by him. The approval has also faced criticism from the Opposition Congress and environmentalists in the State. Demanding its cancellation, they have accused the ruling BJP of sacrificing the interests of the people of State as well as ecological concerns for the benefit of their capitalist friends, specifically the Adani conglomerate that is the mine developer and operator for RVUNL. Echoing similar concerns, Ms. Karat in her August 6 letter sought Mr. Yadav's intervention to 'reverse the destructive decision of the Chhattisgarh Forest department to give the green signal for the operationalisation of the Kente Extension Coal Project which requires the destruction of 1,742 hectares of dense forest land.' The approval follows the so-called inspection of the site by the Surguja District Forest Officer in June this year, she added. Ms. Karat further wrote that these projects were being taken up ignoring the opinions of the gram sabhas involved and the provisions of the Constitution and legal frameworks that made consent of the gram sabhas mandatory. 'Open cast mining affects a very large geographical area beyond the actual project. So even though human habitation in this specific area is negligible, many villages outside the area will be deeply affected. Earlier, more than 1,500 written objections from local communities were given to the government. But these have been ignored,' she wrote.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Doubtful conduct of an accused not enough for conviction: SC
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has ruled that the doubtful conduct of an accused cannot be the sole criterion to convict him if there is no other evidence to prove his involvement in a crime and acquitted a murder convict who was sentenced to life imprisonment. Setting aside the trial court and high court's order of conviction, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said: "In this context, we deem it necessary to sound a note of caution. While the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, it cannot, by itself, serve as the sole basis for conviction, especially in a grave charge such as murder. Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of the accused is merely one of the circumstances the court may consider, in conjunction with other direct or circumstantial evidence on record. To put it succinctly, although relevant, the accused's conduct alone cannot justify a conviction in the absence of cogent and credible supporting evidence". The trial court and Chhattisgarh high court had relied on the conduct of the accused, who had allegedly approached the police and lodged an FIR admitting that he committed the offence, to pronounce him guilty. But the apex court said an FIR of a confessional nature lodged by an accused person is inadmissible as evidence against him, except to the extent that it shows he made a statement soon after the offence, thereby identifying him as the maker of the report, which is admissible as evidence of his conduct under the Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Most Beautiful Female Athletes Right Now Undo "Additionally, any information furnished by him that leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Act. However, a non-confessional FIR is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Act and is relevant," the bench said. The prosecution told the bench that the accused himself had gone to the police station and lodged the FIR and he also led the investigating officer and the panchnama witnesses to a place where he had kept the clothes worn by him during the incident. These were enough to convict him, it submitted. The bench, however, rejected the plea and said, "The legal position, therefore, is this - a statement contained in the FIR furnished by one of the accused in the case cannot, in any manner, be used against another accused. Even against the accused who made it, the statement cannot be used if it is inculpatory in nature nor can it be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction unless its maker offers himself as a witness in the trial. The very limited use of it is, as an admission under Section 21 of the Act, against its maker alone, and only if the admission does not amount to a confession".
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
India's dignity belittled by hand-pulled rickshaws: SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed deep anguish over the prevailing inhuman practice of hand-pulled rickshaws ferrying visitors in the eco-sensitive and automobile-free Matheran hill station in Maharashtra's Western Ghats and said this belittles India's march towards a developing country and its Constitution which promises social and economic justice. A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria recalled a 45-year-old judgment in the Azad Rickshaw Pullers Association case, in which Supreme Court had come to the rescue of exploited cycle-rickshaw pullers and framed a scheme for ensuring their dignity and livelihood, and said that it is the duty of the Maharashtra govt to frame a scheme within six months to provide e-rickshaws to persons engaged in ferrying tourists on hand-pulled rickshaws. Dictating the judgment in court for the bench, CJI Gavai said, "It is really unfortunate that even after 45 years of the SC judgment on cycle-rickshaw pullers of Punjab, the inhuman practice of one human being ferrying another on hand-pulled rickshaws is prevalent (in Matheran)." "Are we alive to the social and economic justice of every human being as mandated by the Constitution? Unfortunately, the answer is in the negative. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo Continuing such inhuman practices even after 75 years of the Constitution would be akin to betraying the promise 'We the People' made to all citizens - social and economic justice," he said. To ensure social and economic justice, the state must frame a scheme for the people who hand-pull rickshaws so that they earn their livelihood with dignity, the bench said and asked the Maharashtra govt to take a leaf out of the e-rickshaw scheme which is working well to empower tribal women around the Sardar Patel statue at Gujarat's Sardar Sarovar dam. The CJI said that the govt could purchase e-rickshaws for Matheran and rent them out only to those who hand-pull rickshaws to rehabilitate them.
