Impeachment motion to be brought against Yashwant Varma in next Parliament session
A motion will be tabled in the next session of Parliament to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma, who was transferred to the Allahabad High Court after a huge stash of cash was found at his Delhi residence during a fire incident in March, sources told India Today.Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju will be speaking to all the parties about the matter before the Monsoon Session of Parliament convenes, they added.advertisementThis came after the inquiry report into Justice Yashwant Varma said he failed to provide an explanation of the source of the money and the allegations of misconduct were serious enough to seek his impeachment.
The Supreme Court-appointed committee said that he only gave a "flat denial" and alleged conspiracy against him."The factum of the burnt cash having been found in the store room was undeniably established and, therefore, the burden shifted upon Justice Varma to account for the said cash by giving a plausible explanation which he failed to do except projecting a case of flat denial and raising a plea of conspiracy," the report said.The report, details of which were accessed by India Today, said several stacks of burnt notes, reportedly as high as 1.5 feet, were found scattered across the storeroom of Justice Varma's Delhi residence.advertisementThe cash pile was discovered at the judge's official residence when a fire broke out there on March 14. Justice Varma was not at his residence then. Subsequently, the Supreme Court transferred him from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court, but he has not been assigned work.Earlier this month, the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna wrote to the President and the Prime Minister, forwarding the report of a three-member committee investigating the allegations against Justice Varma.According to the in-house procedure for High Court judges, the Chief Justice approaches the President and the Prime Minister only in one specific circumstance: when the inquiry committee finds the allegations serious enough to warrant the initiation of removal proceedings, and the judge in question refuses to resign voluntarily.WHAT IS THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE?The procedure for impeaching a High Court judge is governed by the Constitution of India and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.Under the Constitution, a judge can be removed only on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity, through a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament.The Constitution states that a judge shall not be removed except by an order of the President, passed after an address by each House of Parliament, supported by:A majority of the total membership of that House, andA majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.advertisementThis address must be presented to the President during the same parliamentary session.NEXT STEPS IN PARLIAMENTIf the judge is found not guilty: No further steps are taken. The pending motion is dropped.If the judge is found guilty: The motion, along with the committee report, is considered by the House(s) in which it is pending.If both Houses adopt the motion with the required majorities, the misbehaviour or incapacity of the judge is deemed proven.An address for the judge's removal is then presented to the President in the same session.Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's "largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups."Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans."Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing "background circumstances" that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such Jackson wrote that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Prabhakar Rao likely to return to India on June 9
Hyderabad: Former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief Prabhakar Rao, prime accused in the phone tapping case, is expected to come to India on June 9 from the US. It is learnt that Rao approached the Indian embassy in the US and is all set to get his passport. The Supreme Court had recently directed authorities to restore his passport to allow him to travel to India. The SC also protected him from arrest, but directed him to return to India within three days of obtaining his travel documents. The passport had been revoked following a request to Centre from Hyderabad police as he had been avoiding questioning by cops by staying in the US citing ill health. Soon after Hyderabad police registered a case of phone tapping in 2024, Rao had fled to the US.
