"Why Did You Wait?" Supreme Court's Tough Questions To Cash Row Judge
Hearing Justice Yashwant Varma's plea challenging the Supreme Court's action against him following the cash recovery from his Delhi home, the top court today said the petition "should not have been filed like this" and that the judge's "main issue is with the Supreme Court".
"This petition should not have been filed like this. Please see, the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is (the) Supreme Court as your grievance is against the process mentioned," the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih said.
According to the Supreme Court website, the petition, filed by the judge under the name 'XXX', has three respondents: (1) The Union of India (2) Supreme Court of India (3) Supreme Court of India.
Justice Datta also took exception when he found that the report of the three-judge panel, which probed the allegations against Justice Varma, had not been attached to the petition. "Where is the report of the three-judge panel?" he asked. When Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal replied that the report is in public domain, Justice Datta replied, "No, you should have attached the report with your plea."
Arguing the matter, Mr Sibal pointed to the rules laid down in the Constitution for the removal of a judge. He flagged the action against Justice Varma and said it did not follow due process.
"The constitutional scheme appears to be that unless the misconduct etc is proven on the ground of proven misbehaviour etc, there cannot be a discussion of judges' conduct even in the parliament. If the Constitution scheme is that such conduct cannot be discussed even in Parliament till such misconduct is proven, then it is difficult to believe that such an action is acceptable elsewhere. All the release of tapes, putting on website, and a public furore consequential thereto, media accusations against judges, findings by the public, discussing conduct of judges... all are prohibited. If the procedure allows them to do that, then it is violative of the constitution bench judgment," he said.
The top court referred to former Chief Justice Khanna's letter to the Prime Minister and President, recommending action against Justice Varma. "How do you know the letter asked for impeachment? The letter is not in the public domain," the court asked.
When Mr Sibal said the cash was found in the outhouse and questioned how it could be attributed to the judge, Justice Datta responded, "Police, FIR, staff, all were there and cash was found." The senior lawyer replied that the judge's staff were not present. When Justice Datta asked if Mr Sibal was saying that the committee's report is not worth it, he replied, "No, it's not."
"Why did you not challenge when (the) committee was appointed, why did you wait? Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past," Justice Datta asked. Mr Sibal said Justice Varma appeared before the committee because he thought it would find out who the cash belonged to. The case will be heard next on Wednesday.
Justice Varma made headlines after a massive cash recovery from his Delhi residence during a fire. Following the incident, which triggered allegations of corruption, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court from his earlier posting in the Delhi High Court. The then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-judge panel to investigate the matter. Following the panel's report, the then Chief Justice recommended Justice Varma's removal.
The judge has now challenged this action. He has said the top court panel did not hear him. The judge has said that the Supreme Court's recommendation for his removal based on the panel's report "usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office".
"This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges," it says.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
23 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump sees emergencies everywhere. Judges are considering whether to rein him in
WASHINGTON : Across the U.S. landscape, Donald Trump sees one emergency after another, and that is posing a host of challenges for the federal courts. Since beginning his second term, Trump has declared in dozens of presidential documents that the U.S. faces emergencies requiring him to take extraordinary actions that circumvent normal government processes. That gambit offers him a path of unilateral action instead of the uncertain route of enacting legislation through Congress. On Inauguration Day, Trump declared national emergencies involving energy production, border crossings from Mexico and transnational cartels. In the months since, he has proclaimed that the actions of the International Criminal Court, California water regulations and protests against his immigration policies all constitute emergencies of one form or another. The moves have spurred many lawsuits. While the details vary, the cases share common core questions: When does the law allow Trump to claim power this way? And are the emergencies he is claiming real ones? The president's strategy faces perhaps its biggest test yet on Thursday, when his use of tariffs to address a range of commercial, political and diplomatic issues he has labeled emergencies goes before a federal appeals court in Washington. The case is expected eventually to reach the Supreme Court; if Trump wins, legal experts say he could claim broad unilateral power to regulate the economy. Almost all presidents are aggressive in their use of executive power, but Trump 'has gone further with declaring emergencies than other presidents have," says Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Chicago. Trump early in his second term has built a mixed record in court. Several courts have rejected his proclamation under a 1798 statute, the Alien Enemies Act, that Venezuela is attempting a 'predatory incursion" of U.S. territory through the unauthorized immigration of members of a criminal gang. The president has argued that the law gives him the authority to apprehend Venezuelans and remove them without the typical due process given to immigrants who are residing in the U.S. without permission. In June, a federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed that Trump could use emergency powers to take control of the California National Guard over the objection of its regular commander in chief, Gov. Gavin Newsom, to protect federal personnel and facilities during immigration raids in Los Angeles. Trump enjoyed some success asserting emergency powers during his first term. In 2019, after Congress declined his request to fund a wall along the Mexican border, Trump declared a national emergency and diverted to the project $2.5 billion that lawmakers had appropriated for other purposes. Congress voted to cancel the border emergency, but Trump vetoed the resolution. Lower courts found that Trump exceeded his authority, but a 5-4 Supreme Court issued a temporary order in 2020 allowing him to continue with construction. The justices never got a chance to hear argument over the issue, as President Joe Biden terminated Trump's emergency declaration in January 2021. Biden didn't fare as well when he sought to cancel student-loan debt to mitigate the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2023, the Supreme Court said Biden's plan to forgive $430 billion in debt exceeded the powers Congress granted the president to waive or modify student-loan programs in response to national emergencies. In the tariff litigation, two federal courts found in May that Trump exceeded the authority granted by a 1977 statute, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, when he imposed tariffs to pressure foreign governments to meet U.S. demands. He said one set of tariffs was necessary to prod Canada, China and Mexico to step up their fight against fentanyl smuggling into the U.S., while another aimed to goad countries throughout the world to lower barriers against American exports. The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but it can delegate authority to the president. The 1977 law allows the president to take economic steps to deal with 'unusual and extraordinary" threats to America's 'national security, foreign policy, or economy." Whether the statute provides for tariffs at all is hotly debated, as is the difficult question of whether courts can and should second-guess a president's decision to proclaim that an emergency exists. In court briefs, the New York wine importer VOS Selections and other companies challenging the tariffs say Trump himself acknowledged that there is no emergency. 'At least nine times, Executive Order 14,257 describes the trade deficit as 'large and persistent,'" the plaintiffs say. A persistent problem 'that has been a consistent feature of the U.S. economy for 50 years" can't be deemed an emergency, they say. In reply, the Justice Department says that trade imbalances have grown into an emergency over recent years. But, as it has in other cases, the administration argues that judges are powerless to second-guess Trump's determinations. 'Courts cannot substitute their exercise of discretion for the president's," the government says. Historically, that has been the practice, says Peter Shane, a constitutional scholar at New York University. 'Federal courts are usually pretty deferential to presidential fact-finding when it comes to an emergency," he says. The Constitution provides the executive branch no explicit authority to set aside normal laws, suggesting the framers 'suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies," as Justice Robert Jackson put it in a 1952 opinion. Nonetheless, presidents have over time asserted extraordinary authority to deal with contingencies that Congress didn't anticipate—and take actions that Congress didn't authorize. President Richard Nixon, faced with a Democratic Congress critical of his Vietnam War policies and conservative agenda at home, took unilateral action on several initiatives. Congress tried in the 1970s to reclaim some of the power that Nixon had consolidated in his so-called imperial presidency. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 established procedures for the president to declare emergencies, set a renewable one-year time limit on emergency declarations and gave Congress authority to cancel an emergency declaration. Trump has invoked that act at least eight times this year. Write to Jess Bravin at
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
23 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC reserves verdict on Justice Varma's plea against panel findings
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's challenge to an in-house inquiry panel's report that found him involved in the cash discovery matter. The court questioned Justice Varma's decision to participate in the in-house inquiry committee proceedings without contesting its validity at that stage. 'Your conduct does not inspire confidence. We did not want to say this, but your conduct says a lot. You could have come. There are judgments which say that once you submit to the authority, there is a possibility that you may have a favourable finding, and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here. A person who is invoking Article 32 jurisdiction — conduct is also relevant,' Justice Datta said. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A G Masih heard the matter. The bench also heard a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Yashwant Varma, said that the Judges (Inquiry) Act occupies the entire field relating to the removal of a judge, and hence an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge's removal. 'If an in-house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, then it is violative of Article 124,' he argued. Article 124 of the Constitution deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Datta then pointed out that the in-house procedure has its origins in judgments delivered by the Supreme Court. Justice Varma also challenged the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. His plea alleges that the panel's findings were based on a 'preconceived narrative' and that the adverse findings were drawn without affording him a full and fair hearing. 'Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But the judiciary has to send a message to society that the process has been followed,' the bench said. The bench pointed out that the Chief Justice of India post is not supposed to be a post office only. 'He (the CJI) has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come before him (regarding misconduct), the CJI has the duty to forward them to the President and the Prime Minister. If, on the basis of the material, it is found that the misdemeanour is so serious as to call for action, he would be affirming the earlier decisions of this court saying the CJI has the authority to do so,' Justice Datta said. He further stated that the 'in-house procedure' was the law laid down by the Supreme Court as per Article 141. However, the bench agreed with Sibal's argument that the videos showing burning of cash currencies should not have been leaked during the procedure. The in-house inquiry committee had examined 55 witnesses and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11.35 pm on March 14, 2025, at the official residence of Justice Varma, then serving in the Delhi High Court and now a judge of the Allahabad High Court. Based on the panel's findings, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Nithari case: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as many as 14 appeals against the acquittal of accused Surendra Koli in the sensational 2006 Nithari serial killings case. Nithari case: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran said that there was "no perversity" in the findings of the Allahabad High Court acquitting Koli. Referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the CJI said the recovery of skulls and other belongings of the victims from an open drain was not made following the statement of Koli before the police. The bench said any recovery made without recording the statement of the accused by the police is not admissible as evidence under the Evidence law. It said only those recoveries, which are made from a place accessible to the accused only, can be admitted as evidence in a case primarily hinging on circumstantial evidence. The top court last year agreed to examine separate pleas, including those filed by the CBI and the Uttar Pradesh government, challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision acquitting Koli on October 16, 2023. One of the pleas was filed by the father of one of the victims challenging the high court's verdict. Moninder Singh Pandher and his domestic help Koli were accused of rape and murder of people, mostly children from their neighbourhood in Nithari in Uttar Pradesh. Koli was awarded the death penalty on September 28, 2010 by the trial court. The high court acquitted Pandher and Koli in the death penalty case, holding the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" and called it a "botched up" investigation. Reversing the death sentence given to Koli in 12 cases and Pandher in two cases, the high court said the probe was "nothing short of a betrayal of public trust by responsible agencies". This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
