&w=3840&q=100)
Cash row: SC rejects RTI plea for in-house panel report, CJI's letter to PM
The Supreme Court administration has rejected a plea seeking a report of the apex court-appointed committee, which indicted Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in the cash discovery row, under the Right to Information Act.
The RTI application had also sought the communication of the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the matter.
The apex court administration apparently referred to the confidentiality of the communication and rejected the RTI application on grounds that it may violate parliamentary privilege also.
Earlier this month, the then CJI Khanna had wrote to the President and the Prime Minister besides sharing the report of the committee along with the response received from Justice Varma.
Now, it is up to the executive and Parliament to decide the future course of action.
The in-house procedure entails that the CJI writes to President and the Prime Minister for impeachment after the advice to the judge to resign is not complied with.
Also Read
"Chief Justice of India, in terms of the in-house procedure, has written to President of India and the Prime Minister of India enclosing therewith copy of the three-member committee report dated May 3 along with the letter/response dated May 6 received from Justice Yashwant Varma," the apex court said in a statement on May 8.
The apex court-appointed panel confirmed the cash discovery allegations against Justice Varma in its inquiry report, sources previously said.
The three-member panel comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court. The report was finalised on May 3.
Sources had also said the then CJI Khanna nudged Justice Varma to step down in view of critical findings in the report, which was forwarded to the judge for his response in line with the principle of natural justice.
The panel analysed evidence and recorded the statements of over 50 people, including Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora and Delhi Fire Service chief who were among the first responders to the fire incident at Justice Varma's official residence in Lutyen's Delhi at 11.35 pm on March 14.
Justice Varma was a judge of the Delhi High Court at that time.
The allegation was repeatedly denied by Justice Varma in his response to the Delhi High Court chief justice and to the apex court appointed panel.
The controversy was raised following a news report in the cash discovery row and led to several steps, including a preliminary inquiry by Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, judicial work being taken away from Justice Varma in the Delhi High Court, and later his transfer to the Allahabad High Court sans judicial work.
On March 24, the apex court collegium recommended the repatriation of Justice Varma to his parent Allahabad High Court.
On March 28, the top court asked the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court not to assign any judicial work for now to Justice Varma.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
33 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Back in public eye: Madhya Pradesh minister who put party in a spot with remarks on Col Sofiya Qureshi
After his remarks on Operation Sindoor caused an uproar, Madhya Pradesh Tribal Welfare Minister Vijay Shah made his first public appearance in 17 days when he visited the family of a rape-murder victim in Khandwa. Shah was booked by the Madhya Pradesh Police last month after saying in a public meeting in Mhow on May 11 that India taught a lesson to those responsible for the Pahalgam terror attack using 'their own sister'. While he did not name anyone, it has been alleged that he was alluding to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had briefed the media when Operation Sindoor was underway. The minister is now under investigation by a Supreme Court-ordered special investigation team (SIT), and had not been seen in public until May 28, when he visited the grieving family of a woman who was gangraped and murdered in Khandwa district's Khalwa region. Both the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court have reprimanded the minister for his statement, and Shah has apologised for the comments three times. The ruling BJP went into damage control mode, and the central leadership of the party is yet to take a call on Shah's future. While his visit to Khandwa on May 28 marks his first public outing since the backlash, he did not speak to the media. Local BJP sources said Shah spent over two hours with the victim's family and promised both financial support and systemic interventions. He reportedly handed over a Rs 60,000 cheque, committed to building a tin roof for the family's house, and promised further financial assistance, sources said. 'He also said that a young girl in the family who had dropped out of school would be re-enrolled. Monthly monitoring meetings are to be initiated in the area to track school dropouts,' a BJP leader said. The Opposition Congress had launched a sarcastic 'missing minister' campaign, plastering posters across Indore and Bhopal with his photograph and a mock reward of Rs 11,000 for anyone who could find him. During this period, Shah skipped the special Cabinet meeting in the historic Rajwada palace to commemorate regional icon, Ahilyabai Holkar, on May 20 and another special Cabinet meeting hosted in the scenic town of Pachmarhi on Tuesday, to honour tribal icon and freedom fighter, Raja Bhabhoot Singh. Shah had also skipped the 300th birth anniversary events of Ahilyabai Holkar, for which Prime Minister Narendra Modi had arrived in Bhopal on May 31. The Supreme Court has extended the operation of its interim order protecting Shah from arrest. It also closed the suo motu proceedings pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court as it is already seized of the matter. The SIT had submitted its report to the Supreme Court, which contained investigation details like forensic evidence, and sought more time for the probe.
Hindustan Times
35 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Not contempt': SC refuses to quash Chhattisgarh's anti-Naxal law
The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, holding that its enactment by the state legislature does not amount to contempt of the court's previous order that outlawed the controversial Salwa Judum militia. While refusing to strike down the 2011 legislation, the top court, however, made it unequivocally clear that it is the constitutional duty of both the Centre and the Chhattisgarh government to ensure peace and rehabilitation for the people affected by violence in the region. 'We note that it is duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,' a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma stated in its May 15 order, released recently. The bench noted that though the earlier order dated July 5, 2011 in the Nandini Sundar Vs State of Chhattisgarh case had directed the state to desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in anti-Naxal operations, the 2011 Act did not violate or override that ruling, nor could the enactment of a law be equated to contempt of court. 'Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a Court, including this Court, for simply making the law…The passing of an enactment subsequent to the order of this Court by the legislature of the State of Chhattisgarh cannot, in our view, be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by this Court,' held the bench. The bench added that the legislative action undertaken by the State was an exercise of its legitimate power under the Constitution. 'Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law,' it said. Led by senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, the petitioners — sociologist Nandini Sundar, historian Ramachandra Guha, former bureaucrat EAS Sarma, had argued that the enactment of the 2011 law was in contempt of the apex court's July 2011 judgment, which held that the practice of appointing tribal youth as SPOs and arming them to fight Maoists was unconstitutional. They contended that the new law merely gave legislative backing to an arrangement that had already been struck down by the court. However, the court noted that while the earlier directions in the Nandini Sundar judgment prohibited the use of SPOs for counter-insurgency operations and ordered disbanding of armed vigilante groups like Salwa Judum, the enactment of a new law by the state legislature could not, by itself, be equated to contempt. It added that the petitioners must mount an appropriate legal challenge if they sought to assail the validity of the 2011 law because the 'interpretative power of a constitutional court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a court.' The region has witnessed a decades-old Maoist insurgency, marked by frequent clashes between security forces and armed rebels, and has claimed thousands of lives over the years, including those of civilians, security personnel, and insurgents. The present litigation arises out of the Supreme Court's landmark 2011 judgment that had declared the use of tribal civilians as SPOs to combat Maoist insurgency as unconstitutional and violative of human rights. The top court had categorically banned the use of SPOs, many of them minors, and ordered disbanding of private militias like Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos, terming their activities as 'unconstitutional'. In that order, the apex court directed the immediate cessation of using SPOs in any form of counter-insurgency operations, withdrawal of all firearms issued to SPOs, prosecution of those responsible for criminal acts committed under the aegis of Salwa Judum and NHRC and CBI probes into grave human rights violations, including alleged arson and killings in some identified districts in Chhattisgarh. However, soon after the 2011 verdict, the state government enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, purportedly to legitimise the appointment of locals in auxiliary armed forces, prompting fresh litigation and a contempt plea by the petitioners, who argued that the enactment was an 'attempt to nullify' the Supreme Court's binding directions and that the state's move to reintroduce civilian combatants under a new statutory garb amounted to willful disobedience. They also flagged non-compliance with the court's directive to rehabilitate former SPOs, prosecute members of Salwa Judum for past atrocities, and investigate attacks on activists such as Swami Agnivesh, who was assaulted in 2011 while trying to visit affected villages. Rejecting these arguments, the bench held that enacting a law is a legislative act and must be challenged accordingly, not via contempt jurisdiction. It also took note of the Centre's and Chhattisgarh government's submission that they had complied with the directions issued in 2011 and had filed the requisite compliance reports. The Salwa Judum was a state-sponsored civil militia movement initiated in 2005 as a counter-insurgency strategy against Maoist rebels in southern Chhattisgarh. Comprising largely tribal youth armed with basic training and firearms, the movement rapidly became notorious for serious human rights abuses, including extra-judicial killings, sexual violence and forced displacement of villagers. The Salwa Judum was disbanded officially following the 2011 judgment.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Rijiju reaches out to Oppn on Justice Varma impeachment
NBEMS seeks Supreme Court approval to conduct NEET-PG on August 3 in a single shift, after the court rejected its two-shift model. The exam requires over 1,000 centres, technical infrastructure, and coordination with various authorities to accommodate 242,679 candidates.
