What does Chief Justice's letter to President, PM in Justice Varma case mean?
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has written to the President and Prime Minister, forwarding the report of the three-member committee probing allegations against the former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large sum of cash was recovered. The letter also includes Justice Varma's response to the findings.The Supreme Court, in an official communication, stated that this was done "in terms of the in-house procedure". Following a fire incident on March 14, the enquiry committee confirmed the recovery of cash from the official residence of Justice Varma, then serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court. Based on the panel's report submitted to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.advertisementWHAT CJI's LETTER SIGNIFY?The CJI Khanna's letter to the President and Prime Minister suggests that Justice Varma may have been asked to resign or take voluntary retirement, and that he declined to do so. As per the in-house procedure for high court judges, the Chief Justice approaches the President and Prime Minister only in one specific situation: when the enquiry committee finds the allegations to be serious enough to warrant the initiation of removal proceedings, and the concerned judge refuses to step down voluntarily.WHAT IS IN-HOUSE PROCEDURE?
The in-house procedure was first laid down by the Supreme Court in the 1995 judgment C Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice AM Bhattacharjee and further clarified in the 2015 judgment Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh.Following the 1995 case, a committee was formed by the Supreme Court comprising three judges of the top court and two senior-most Chief Justices of the High Courts. The committee was asked to establish a procedure to deal with complaints against judges who fail to adhere to the expected standards of judicial conduct, including the values outlined in the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life".advertisementThe committee submitted its report in 1997, and it was adopted with amendments during a Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court in 1999.POSSIBLE OUTCOMESOnce the Chief Justice of India constitutes an enquiry committee under the in-house procedure, the committee is expected to carry out a fact-finding enquiry into the allegations. This is not a formal judicial proceeding and does not involve examination or cross-examination of witnesses.Possible outcomes of the enquiry-The committee may arrive at one of the following conclusions:The allegations are unfounded – In this case, the CJI may close the matter.The allegations have substance but are not serious enough to warrant removal – The CJI may then counsel the judge and place the committee's report on record.The allegations are found to be serious and warrant removal proceedings – In this scenario, the CJI typically advises the judge to resign or take voluntary retirement. If the judge refuses, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court is advised not to assign any judicial work to the judge. The CJI then writes to the President and Prime Minister, enclosing the committee's report and informing them that the allegations are grave enough to initiate the process for removal.SIGNIFICANCE OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENTGiven that the CJI has now written to the President and the Prime Minister and enclosed the committee's findings, it appears that the committee may have recommended removal proceedings and Justice Yashwant Varma chose not to resign or retire. This is one of the rare times when an in-house enquiry has been invoked by the Indian judiciary.Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Telangana urges audit of big irrigation projects, moots farmer-centric reforms; demands MSP for all crops with state authority on pricing
Telangana has advocated for a comprehensive audit of large irrigation projects before a Supreme Court panel, highlighting their impact on agricultural sustainability HYDERABAD: As debates continue around the cost and viability of the Kaleshwaram irrigation project, Telangana has made a strong case before the Supreme Court-appointed high-powered committee on agricultural crisis-constituted in the aftermath of the Punjab farmers' protests against central farm laws. During their interaction with the committee over the last two days in Haryana, Telangana representatives called for a comprehensive audit and review of investments in large irrigation projects, citing their direct impact on agricultural sustainability. They proposed promoting small-scale, individually-owned irrigation systems as a viable alternative to the current large-scale, publicly-managed projects, which often come with significant financial and ecological burdens. A key recommendation was to issue insurance policy documents to farmers, similar to health and life insurance formats, to offer better financial security in the face of crop failure and unpredictable climatic conditions. Telangana Rythu Commission chairperson M Kodanda Reddy, Telangana Seed Development Corporation chairperson S Anvesh Reddy, and other members of the Telangana team also stressed the importance of developing multiple use water systems, arguing that water should serve various agricultural and non-agricultural needs. Improve existing infra "Site selection for irrigation projects should be done carefully to minimise negative environmental and social impacts," they noted, while advocating for improving the efficiency of existing infrastructure and reclaiming degraded farmland instead of building new projects. Among other crucial points raised: State-wise water resource management plans should be formulated. The minimum support price (MSP) should be extended to all crops, with focus on crops like turmeric, jaggery, and mustard, given escalating input costs. Telangana also proposed that states be empowered to set their own MSP. The farmer should be recognised not just as a producer but also as a consumer, who routinely faces issues such as poor quality inputs, lack of after sales service, price manipulation, and weight fraud - areas where the Consumer Protection Act fails to fully safeguard farmers . Telangana urged the creation of special legal provisions for farmers as consumers.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
HC quashes suicide abetment case against city bizman
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday quashed a first information report (FIR) against city-based businessman Nishit Patel who was accused of instigating the suicide of his friend. Patel's wife had loaned ₹25 lakh to the deceased, who owned a shop in Bandra, and Patel was named in the FIR as the suicide note mentioned him pressuring the deceased to pay the interest. Patel, a manufacturer of electrical control panels for over 20 years, had approached the court after the Khar police filed a chargesheet against him based on the suicide note and a statement of the deceased's employee. Patel and his family had good relations with the family of the deceased, who had been running a shop in Bandra selling household articles for more than 50 years. He would often advance loans to the deceased and his son via loan agreements. On October 27, 2015, Patel's wife loaned ₹25 lakh to the deceased – though the loan was advanced without a written agreement, it was made part of an agreement in March 2017. Around three months later, in July 2017, the shop owner died by suicide. In December 2017, his wife found his suicide note, which named nine persons including Patel as responsible for his taking the extreme step. Patel was 'very harsh in collecting his interest money, did not cooperate at all,' the suicide note read. The Khar police registered an FIR against Patel based on a complaint by the deceased's wife. During investigation, the deceased's employee told the police that his boss had borrowed a large sum from Nishit Patel. 'Every time Patel visited the store, my boss repeatedly requested him to reduce the interest rate, still he did not reduce the interest rate,' the employee said in his statement. The prosecution, relying on the above evidence, filed charges of instigating the shopkeeper's suicide against the businessman. The division bench of justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale referred to recent judgements by the Supreme Court including in Prakash and others vs State of Maharashtra, which clarified that to attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it was important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused in close proximity to the commission of suicide. 'Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide,' the Supreme Court had held. Mens rea (Latin for 'guilty mind') refers to criminal intent, or the state of mind statutorily required to convict an accused for a particular crime. The division bench then quashed the FIR against Patel, saying, 'We do not find that the petitioner who had given loan to the deceased by executing a loan agreement had, in any way, the requisite mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.'
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Appeals court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
An appeals court on Thursday (June 19, 2025) allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Mr. Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a President of a state National Guard without the Governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that 'it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority' in federalizing control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the [resident's order. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Mr. Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Mr. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Mr. Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday (June 17, 2025), all three judges suggested that Presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Mr. Newsom sued to block Mr. Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Mr. Breyer found that Mr. Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Mr. Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the President's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
