
Cash-at-home row: Rijiju says ‘signatures' to impeach Justice Varma to be collected soon; govt eyes motion in Monsoon session
Kiren Rijiju
told reporters on Thursday, according to PTI.
Prominent opposition parties have reportedly given their in-principle approval to support the move, signalling rare bipartisan agreement on the matter.
'We are yet to decide whether the motion will be brought in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha,' Rijiju said, noting that the requisite number of signatures—100 MPs for the Lok Sabha and 50 for the Rajya Sabha—would be collected once that decision is made. The government aims to table the motion during the Monsoon Session, which runs from July 21 to August 21.
Justice Varma came under scrutiny following a fire incident in March this year at his official residence in Delhi, then assigned to the Delhi high court. The blaze led to the discovery of several burnt sacks filled with large amounts of cash. He was subsequently repatriated to his parent cadre in the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work.
According to PTI, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had recommended Varma's removal in a letter addressed to the President and Prime Minister after the inquiry panel submitted its report on May 4.
The same report, however, is yet to be made public.
In an earlier PTI report, several MPs raised pointed questions during a parliamentary committee meeting about why no FIR had been filed over the cash recovery and demanded swift government action. Some called for a strict judicial code of conduct, including a five-year "cooling-off" period before judges can accept post-retirement assignments. Others cited the Veeraswami vs Union of India judgment, which held that prior sanction is required to prosecute sitting judges under anti-corruption laws.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Rijiju said the government was keen to ensure a united political front. 'This involves corruption in the judiciary. We want all parties to be on board,' he said.
Only two impeachment motions have ever been initiated against judges in India—against Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993 and Justice Soumitra Sen in 2011. Neither resulted in removal. The Centre now appears set to attempt the third.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


News18
30 minutes ago
- News18
Pakistani Accounts Misquote Jaishankar's Op Sindoor Statement: Indian Govt Does Fact Check
Last Updated: The Centre said the claim made by Pakistani accounts is misleading and only a part of EAM S Jaishankar's full statement during an interview with an American news publication Pakistani accounts have misquoted External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's statement on the interaction between India and US over Operation Sindoor. The central government did a fact check to counter the false claims being made by these social media accounts on X. These state that on May 9, the United States had warned Prime Minister Narendra Modi that Pakistan would launch a major attack unless certain conditions were accepted. Following this, India immediately accepted these conditions, the accounts claimed. In one of the Pakistani accounts run by Mansoor Ahmed Qureshi, a post that has been shared over 400 times mentioned: 'India's own FM confessed: 'On May 9, the US warned PM Modi that Pakistan would launch a major attack unless certain conditions were accepted." India accepted – immediately. So who blinked first?" The Centre said this claim is misleading and is only a part of Jaishankar's full statement during an interview with an American news publication. 'This claim is misleading! This is only a part of his full statement," the government said in a post on X via a fact check conducted by the Press Information Bureau (PIB). Pakistani accounts claim that on May 9, the US warned PM Modi that Pakistan would launch a major attack unless certain conditions were accepted and India accepted immediately #PIBFactCheck ✅This claim is misleading! This is only a part of his full statement.✅During the… — PIB Fact Check (@PIBFactCheck) July 3, 2025 The government said Jaishankar, during the interview, said Modi told the US that if Pakistan attacked India, there will be a response. And the next day, following India's 'massive response" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called him to inform him that Pakistan was ready to talk. 'During the interview with Newsweek, EAM Dr S Jaishankar said that Prime Minister told US 'if Pakistan launched an attack on India, there would be a response from us! EAM also said, the next morning, following India's massive response, 'Mr. Rubio called me up and said the Pakistanis were ready to talk'," the post on X said.


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
WB CM writes to Amit Shah over spike in fake social media content, cybercrime
Kolkata: West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee on Thursday wrote a letter to union home minister Amit Shah, raising her concern over the spike in provocative social media content and cybercrime. Mamata Banerjee had previously accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of spreading misinformation and fake videos, especially during the violence in Murshidabad (PTI) 'I write to convey my deep concern over an issue that is increasingly posing serious challenges to public tranquillity and the social fabric of our nation – the proliferation of provocative content on some sections of the social media platforms and the alarming rise in cybercrimes,' Banerjee wrote in the letter. Banerjee had previously accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of spreading misinformation and fake videos, especially during the violence in Murshidabad. 'Yesterday some news was spread that I have resigned. Police have registered an FIR. The jumla party only believes in divide-and-rule policy. Fake videos are being circulated every day. Earlier attempts were made to pass off videos of Gujarat riots as those from Murshidabad,' she had said on April 2. Police had suspended internet services in some parts of Murshidabad after violence broke out in West Bengal's Murshidabad district over the Waqf (Amendment) Act in April, to prevent the spread of misinformation. Videos of a mob attacking the block development office in Jalangi and ransacking the office of a railway gateman in Azimganj had surfaced on social media. Rioters were seen in video clips looting an outlet of a retail chain. Police had reportedly resorted to lathi-charge and tear gas after vehicles were torched, shops looted, and policemen attacked. Also Read: 3 killed, 18 cops injured in Murshidabad violence over Waqf Act; 118 held so far In the two-page letter, she said that recent 'incendiary narratives, misleading stories and fake videos' on social media have 'significantly contributed to aggravation of criminal tendencies among certain sections of society.' 'Such content not only spreads misinformation but also has the potential to inflame communal sentiments, incite violence, disrupt societal harmony and indulge in crime against women,' Banerjee added. Banerjee also highlighted the surge in cybercrime and said it is 'growing both in complexity and in its detrimental impact.' Also Read: In Murshidabad riots, rerun of an old story 'From financial frauds and identity theft to online harassment and defamation, cybercrimes are exacting a severe toll on individuals and institutions alike. The current legal framework and its enforcement require further strengthening to keep pace with the rapidly evolving digital ecosystem and the sophisticated methods employed by malicious actors,' she added. Banerjee urged the home minister to launch large-scale awareness campaigns to promote responsible digital behaviour, alongside sensitisation programmes, digital literacy campaigns, and community engagement initiatives. 'This is a collective challenge requiring urgent and coordinated action to safeguard public order, national unity, and the integrity of our democracy,' the Trinamool Congress posted on X.


NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
'Rahul Gandhi Can't Be Witness Against Himself': Court In Defamation Case
New Delhi: A court in Pune has rejected a petitioner's request to get a copy of a book which Congress MP Rahul Gandhi cited during a speech in March 2023, which led to the filing of a defamation case against the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Satyaki Savarkar, the grand nephew of Vinayak Savarkar, filed the petition in a special MP/MLA court in Pune seeking a copy of the book which Mr Gandhi used while attacking Vinayak Savarkar. The court, however, rejected the petition, saying the "accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself, nor can he be compelled to produce incriminating material against him." The court said the trial has not yet started, so the defence cannot be compelled to disclose documents. "... The burden of proof lies entirely on the complainant. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If the application is allowed, it would cause serious prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial and his right to defend himself effectively," judicial magistrate first class Amol Shriram Shinde said in the order. "Forcing the defence to prematurely disclose defence materials is neither permitted under criminal procedure nor compatible with constitutional guarantees. It would violate the constitutional right provided under Article 20(3) of the Constitution," the court said. The defamation case against Mr Gandhi alleged he had on several occasions maligned Vinayak Savarkar, and one particular incident in March 2023 during a speech in the UK crossed the limit. As per Article 20(3) of the Constitution, no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, the court said. "Therefore, this court is of the opinion that an order cannot be passed directing the accused to file the incriminating documents. The documents in question are incriminating in nature and are sought to be produced against the accused. "The accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself, nor can he be compelled to produce incriminating material against him. Hence, the application filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected," the court said.