"No FIR to date, need to find out bigger sharks": VP Jagdeep Dhankhar on Justice Yashwant Varma case
VP Dhankhar spoke at the book launch event of 'The Constitution We Adopted (with Artworks)', edited by Vijay Hansaria, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi on Monday.
'We're confronted with the jarring reality. A judge's residence in Lutyens Delhi had burnt notes. There is no FIR to date...Everyone in the country is now thinking whether this will be washed off or fade with time, and they are really concerned. How come the criminal justice system was not operationalised as it would have been done for every other individual?... This issue for which people are waiting with bated breath, the money trail, its source, its purpose,' he said.
Furthermore, the Vice President asserted that there have already been two months into the matter and an investigation must be conducted with 'expedition'.
'Did it pollute the judicial system? Who are the bigger sharks? We need to find out. Already two months have gone by. An investigation is required to be conducted with expedition. So is the case with the registration of an FIR. I do hope and believe that the Supreme Court acted the very best so far because it had a legacy issue of judgments imparted in 90s,' Jagdeep Dhankhar said.
'But now is the time to take a call. Partly the confidence has been restored by Justice Khanna. When you put in public domain documentation which people thought will never be shown to them. That was a big step by him to project accountability and transparency. If democratic values have to prosper, I am sure this is a test case. There must be a swift investigation by those concerned with the investigation,' VP Dhankhar added.
A panel of judges tasked with conducting an internal inquiry into allegations of cash being discovered at Justice Yashwant Varma's official residence submitted its report to the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on May 4.
The Chief Justice of India constituted this committee on March 22 to examine the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the High Court of Delhi. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
39 minutes ago
- Mint
Brad Pitts legal clash with Angelina Jolie heats up as he seeks private messages related to Winery sale
Los Angeles [US], July 10 (ANI): Hollywood Actor Brad Pitt has demanded private communications from ex-wife Angelina Jolie in their ongoing legal fight over Chateau Miraval, the French winery the former couple once co-owned. According to court documents filed on June 30 and obtained by PEOPLE, the 61-year-old actor requested records and a deposition from Alexey Oliynik, an employee of the Stoli Group. Pitt believes Oliynik has key information about Jolie's 2021 sale of her stake in the winery to Stoli's wine division, Tenute del Mondo. The Once Upon a Time in Hollywood star claims that Jolie made the sale without his consent, violating a past agreement that neither of them would sell their share without the other's approval. In February 2022, he sued Jolie, while Jolie responded in September 2022 with a countersuit, accusing Pitt of "waging a vindictive war" against her since their separation in 2016. As per PEOPLE, in Pitt's new document filed in the Superior Court of California, Oliynik has refused to provide documents or sit for questioning, stating that he cannot be forced to do so since he resides in Switzerland. Pitt's team argues these records are important to prove that Jolie "acted with malice" by selling her share to a buyer Pitt had long opposed. Jolie's legal team has previously claimed Pitt would only buy her out if she signed a non-disclosure agreement meant to keep her from speaking about alleged abuse. That includes an incident on a private jet in 2016, where Pitt was reportedly verbally and physically abusive. Authorities investigated but did not press charges, and Jolie did not pursue legal action at the time, PEOPLE reported. The two, who share six children, finalised their divorce in December 2023, but the legal battle over Chateau Miraval remains unsettled. In 2024, a judge ordered Jolie to submit eight years' worth of NDAs she issued to others as part of the dispute over the terms Pitt allegedly asked her to agree to. A source close to Jolie told PEOPLE that she hopes the family can find peace. According to PEOPLE, a source close to Pitt shared that Jolie's actions have caused "tremendous collateral damage to those in and around the family." (ANI)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
44 minutes ago
- First Post
US Supreme Court clears Trump's immigration crackdown, lifts Florida curbs
Florida's immigration measure was passed by the state's Republican-controlled legislature and signed into law in February by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis read more Journalists sit outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 27, 2025. AFP Photo file The U.S. Supreme Court maintained on Wednesday a judicial block on a Republican-crafted Florida law that makes it a crime for immigrants in the United States illegally to enter the state. The justices denied a request by state officials to lift an order by Florida-based U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams that barred them from carrying out arrests and prosecutions under the law while a legal challenge plays out in lower courts. Williams ruled that Florida's law conflicted with the federal government's authority over immigration policy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Supreme Court's action came in a brief, unsigned order with no noted dissents. Florida's Attorney General James Uthmeier, a Republican, and other state officials filed the emergency request on June 17 asking the Supreme Court to halt the judge's order. Williams found that the Florida law was likely unconstitutional for encroaching on the federal government's exclusive authority over U.S. immigration policy. More from World In a landmark ruling, court finds Russia guilty of shooting down flight MH17, killing 298 onboard The state's request to the justices was backed by America First Legal, a conservative group co-founded by Stephen Miller, a senior aide to President Donald Trump and a key architect of the administration's hardline immigration policies. Florida's immigration measure was passed by the state's Republican-controlled legislature and signed into law in February by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. It made Florida one of at least seven states to pass such laws in recent years, according to court filings. The American Civil Liberties Union in April filed a class action suit in federal court on behalf of two immigrants in the country illegally who reside in Florida, an immigration advocacy group and the nonprofit group Farmworker Association of Florida, whose members include immigrants in the United States illegally who travel in and out of Florida seasonally to harvest crops. Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said the Supreme Court's denial of Florida's request 'reaffirms a bedrock principle that dates back 150 years: States may not regulate immigration.' 'It is past time for states to get the message,' Wofsy said. The law imposes mandatory minimum sentences for adult immigrants in the country illegally who are convicted of entering Florida after arriving in the United States without following federal immigration law. Florida officials contend that the state measure complies with - rather than conflicts with - federal law. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Sentences for violations begin at nine months imprisonment for first offenders and reach up to five years for certain immigrants in the country illegally who have felony records and enter Florida after having been deported or ordered by a federal judge to be removed from the United States. The state law exempts immigrants in the country illegally who were given certain authorization by the federal government to remain in the United States. Florida's immigration crackdown makes no exceptions, however, for those seeking humanitarian protection or with pending applications for immigration relief, according to the ACLU. Williams issued a preliminary injunction in April that barred Florida officials from enforcing the measure. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June declined to halt the judge's ruling. Trump's administration filed a brief to the 11th Circuit backing Florida in their appeal of the judge's ruling, arguing that the state measure does not conflict with federal immigration law. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD On the same day that Uthmeier filed the state's Supreme Court request, Williams found him in civil contempt of court for failing to follow her order to direct all state law enforcement officers not to enforce the immigration measure while it remained blocked by the judge. Williams ordered Uthmeier to provide an update to the court every two weeks on any enforcement of the law. The tough approach by Florida officials toward immigration mirrors that of Trump. The Republican president joined DeSantis during a July 1 tour of a remote migrant detention center in the Florida Everglades dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz.' The complex is estimated to cost $450 million annually and could house some 5,000 people.
Fibre2Fashion
an hour ago
- Fibre2Fashion
Trump slaps 50% tariffs on Brazil over Bolsonaro trial; Lula responds
US President Donald Trump has imposed sweeping new tariffs on Brazil, citing grievances over the treatment of President Jair Bolsonaro and alleged censorship actions by Brazil's Supreme Court. In a sharply worded letter addressed to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump announced that, effective August 1, 2025, all Brazilian exports to the US would face a flat 50 per cent tariff—separate from existing sectoral tariffs. Trump called Bolsonaro a 'Highly Respected Leader' and condemned the ongoing legal proceedings against him as 'a Witch Hunt', demanding the trial end immediately. He also accused Brazil of undermining free elections and targeting free speech, pointing to secret censorship orders allegedly sent by the Brazilian Supreme Court to US-based social media platforms. Trump has announced a 50 per cent tariff on all Brazilian exports to the US from August 1, 2025, citing the trial of President Jair Bolsonaro and alleged censorship by Brazil's Supreme Court. In response, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defended Brazil's sovereignty and judicial independence, calling the claims false and warning of reciprocal measures if tariffs are unilaterally imposed. 'These censorship orders threaten platforms with millions in fines and eviction from the Brazilian market,' Trump wrote. 'We must move away from a trade relationship that has long been unfair and non-reciprocal.' Trump clarified that the tariffs would not apply to Brazilian companies that establish production operations within the US. In a firm response, President Lula reaffirmed Brazil's sovereignty and judicial independence. 'Brazil will not accept any form of tutelage,' he stated. 'The judicial proceedings fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of Brazil's institutions.' Lula rejected Trump's claims of a trade imbalance, noting that US government data reflects a $410 billion surplus in its trade with Brazil over the past 15 years. He also defended Brazil's digital regulation efforts, stressing that freedom of expression must not be conflated with hate speech or illegal content. Lula concluded by warning that any unilateral US tariff hikes would be met under Brazil's Economic Reciprocity Law, asserting that 'sovereignty, respect, and the unwavering defense of the interests of the Brazilian people' will guide its international stance. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (KD)
