SC refuses urgent listing of plea for FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma in cash row
The Supreme Court declined to urgently hear a plea seeking an FIR against Allahabad High Court's Justice Yashwant Varma concerning a cash discovery controversy. The petitioners, led by Mathews Nedumpara, are pushing for criminal proceedings following an in-house inquiry that allegedly found the allegations against Justice Varma to be prima facie true. The court advised following the standard mentioning procedure.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to list for urgent hearing a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against the Allahabad High Court 's Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash discovery row . A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih asked lawyer and petitioner Mathews Nedumpara to follow the mentioning procedure."Please go through the mentioning procedure," the CJI said.Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna had said no to oral mentioning for urgent listing and hearing of cases and said that the lawyers or the litigants will have to write an email and move the apex court registry first.After an in-house inquiry panel indicted the judge, the former CJI had nudged Justice Varma to resign. The ex-CJI wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi after Justice Varma refused to resign.The petition, filed by Nedumpara and three others, called for immediate initiation of criminal proceedings, saying the in-house committee found the allegations against Justice Varma to be prima facie true.The plea emphasised that while the internal inquiry might lead to judicial disciplinary action , it was no substitute for a criminal investigation under the applicable statutes.In March, the same petitioners had approached the apex court, challenging the in-house inquiry and demanding a formal police investigation.However, the top court had then dismissed the plea as premature, citing the pending nature of the internal proceedings.With the inquiry now concluded, the petitioners asserted that a delay in criminal action was no longer tenable.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Trump threatens to revoke Rosie O'Donnell's U.S. citizenship
President Donald Trump says he is considering 'taking away' the U.S. citizenship of a longtime rival, actress and comedian Rosie O'Donnell, despite a decades-old Supreme Court ruling that expressly prohibits such an action by the government. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,' Mr. Trump wrote in a social media post on Saturday (July 12, 2025). He added that O'Donnell, who moved to Ireland in January, should stay in Ireland 'if they want her.' The two have criticized each other publicly for years, an often bitter back-and-forth that predates Mr. Trump's involvement in politics. In recent days, Ms. O'Donnell on social media denounced Mr. Trump and recent moves by his administration, including the signing of a massive GOP-backed tax breaks and spending cuts plan. It's just the latest threat by Mr. Trump to revoke the citizenship of people with whom he has publicly disagreed, most recently his former adviser and one-time ally, Elon Musk. But Ms. O'Donnell's situation is notably different from Mr. Musk, who was born in South Africa. Ms. O'Donnell was born in the United States and has a constitutional right to U.S. citizenship. The U.S. State Department notes on its website that U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization may relinquish U.S. nationality by taking certain steps – but only if the act is performed voluntary and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, noted the Supreme Court ruled in a 1967 case that the Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution prevents the government from taking away citizenship. 'The president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born U.S. citizen," Ms. Frost said in an email Saturday. 'In short, we are nation founded on the principle that the people choose the government; the government cannot choose the people.' Ms. O'Donnell moved to Ireland after Mr. Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris to win his second term. She has said she's in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship based on family lineage. Responding to Mr. Trump on Saturday, Ms. O'Donnell wrote on social media that she had upset the president and 'add me to the list of people who oppose him at every turn.'
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Kila Raipur's heart begins to race
Ludhiana: The thunder of hooves, the creak of wood, returns to Punjab. Bullock cart races are set to gallop back into state's sporting culture, with the assembly on Friday passing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2025. The move paves the way for legal bullock cart races, reviving a decades-old tradition central to the famed Kila Raipur "Rural Olympics". The legislation has been welcomed by race organisers, farmers, and diaspora supporters, who had long decried the 2014 Supreme Court ban. The Kila Raipur Sports Society, which oversees the iconic games held each January and February, said it is already preparing for a major comeback in 2026. "We are on top of the world," said Colonel (Retd) Surinder Singh Grewal, president of the society. "Bullock cart races are the soul of the Kila Raipur Games. We expect between 150 and 200 bull pairs, with participants from across Punjab and neighbouring states." Grewal said the lifting of the ban would not only boost rural pride but also tourism, with interest from Punjabi diaspora communities in the US, Canada, UK and Australia. "We've seen foreign visitors come in the past. With the races back, the crowd will only grow," he said. Cultural Clash Revived The races were outlawed after animal rights petitions alleged cruelty to bulls during competitions. Organisers have pushed back against those claims, insisting animals are well-treated and the events are a matter of honour, not profit. "These bulls are like our children," said Gurinder Singh, a bull owner from Samrala, who maintains six racing bulls. "We feed them special diets, ensure regular vet checkups, and train them for stamina and strength. " Gurinder said races continued discreetly during the ban, often held in villages across the state on nearly 300 days each year—except during the monsoon. "The police used to shut them down, but now we can run them with pride," he said. Race insiders claim that small village events — known as 'Chhoti Daud' — carry cash prizes ranging from ₹10,000 to ₹15,000. But most owners say it's the prestige that matters. Decade-long Legal Battle The Kila Raipur Sports Society said that following the ban, various regional bull race associations from Malwa, Majha and Doaba challenged the decision in court. While similar traditional sports such as Jallikattu were reinstated in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra via state legislation, Punjab lagged behind. In 2019, the then Congress-led govt introduced a similar bill, but it stalled due to legal technicalities. It wasn't until March 2024 that the bill — corrected and backed by the current govt — received presidential assent. Final rules and bylaws were drawn up with the animal husbandry department and passed by the Vidhan Sabha on July 11. Sports, Spectacle, Safety The upcoming 2026 Kila Raipur Games will feature not just bullock cart races, but also dog races, tractor pulls, kabaddi, tug-of-war, and traditional Sikh martial arts like Gatka. Cultural performances such as bhangra and giddha will be held over the three-day festival. Officials have promised veterinary oversight and medical facilities for animals to address welfare concerns. "Specialist teams and ambulances will be stationed during races," said a society member. The Bullock Cart Races Association of Punjab, which claims over 50,000 members, also hailed the legislation. Its general secretary, Nirmal Singh — a US-based non-resident Indian — said he owns three bulls in Jargari village and has long awaited the races' formal return. "This is more than sport — it's our identity," he said. MSID:: 122406565 413 |
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Wife living separately from husband without valid reason not entitled to maintenance: HC
Prayagraj , The Allahabad High Court has observed that a wife living separately from her husband without a valid reason is not entitled to maintenance and set aside a family court order granting maintenance to a married woman. Wife living separately from husband without valid reason not entitled to maintenance: HC Allowing a revision petition filed by the woman's husband, Vipul Agrawal, Justice Subhas Chandra Sharma set aside the February 17 order of maintenance passed by the additional principal judge of the family court in Meerut. "The trial court has recorded the finding that the wife failed to prove that she is living separately from the husband with sufficient reasons and the husband is neglecting to maintain her, even though the amount of maintenance has been fixed in favour of the wife at ₹5,000 per month. "As per the provision contained under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , if the wife is living separately from the husband without sufficient reasons, she is not entitled to maintenance," the high court said. During the course of the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has recorded the finding that the wife is living separately from her husband without sufficient reasons. Despite this, the family court has fixed the amount of maintenance at ₹5,000 per month. He also submitted that the trial court has not considered the earning capacity of the petitioner but fixed the amount of maintenance in favour of the wife and a minor child at ₹5,000 and ₹3,000, totalling ₹8,000 per month. However, the lawyer representing the woman and the state counsel submitted that she is living separately from her husband due to his neglect and that is why the trial court has allowed the application and fixed the amount of maintenance. Allowing the revision petition of the husband, the court said, "In view of the aforesaid finding as recorded by the trial court in relation to the second issue and the order fixing the amount at ₹5,000 per month in favour of the wife, both are contradictory and in violation of the provision as contained in section 125, CrPC. Therefore, the order dated February 17, 2025 being erroneous requires interference by this court." The court, in its judgment dated July 8, sent the matter back to the family court to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. However, the court made it clear that the petitioner will continue to pay an amount of ₹3,000 per month for the wife and ₹2,000 per month for the child as interim maintenance during the pendency of the application. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
