Lok Sabha initiates impeachment process against Justice Yashwant Varma
Speaker On Birla said he had received a motion on July 31 backed by Ravi Shankar Prasad and a total of 146 members from the Lok Sabha and 63 from the Rajya Sabha, following explosive revelations earlier this year when bundles of charred currency were discovered at Justice Varma's government-allotted residence in Delhi during a fire incident in March.
Though the judge was not present at the time the fire occurred at his residence, a three-member in-house judicial inquiry later concluded that he exercised 'secret or active control' over the stash, prompting the Chief Justice of India to recommend his removal.
The impeachment motion was read out in the House by Speaker Om Birla, who also announced the formation of a statutory committee to investigate the charges.
As per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and related rules, the panel will include a sitting Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice from a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.
He said, 'I have found substance as per the rules in the motion and have admitted it for discussion. I have also constituted a three-member committee to investigate the matter, which includes: Justice Arvind Kumar, Supreme Court; Justice Manindar Mohan Shrivastava, Chief Justice of Madras High Court; and Mr V.V. Acharya, senior high court, Karnatka High Court. The committee will soon give its report, and till then the motion will remain pending.'
Justice Varma had challenged the inquiry's findings in the Supreme Court, arguing procedural unfairness and constitutional overreach.
However, the apex court dismissed his plea last week, stating that the process was 'transparent and constitutional', and criticised his decision to participate in the inquiry while later questioning its legitimacy.
If the committee finds merit in the allegations, the motion will require a special majority in both Houses -- a two-thirds vote of members present and voting, and a majority of the total membership -- before being sent to the President for final approval.
This marks only the third time in independent India's history that impeachment proceedings have been initiated against a sitting judge, underscoring the gravity of the charges and the institutional resolve to uphold judicial integrity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC cancels bail of wrestler Sushil Kumar in Chhatrasal Stadium murder case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday cancelled the bail of two-time Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar, the prime accused in the murder of junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankar. Kumar had won a bronze medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics and a silver at the 2012 London Games. (File photo) A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the March 4 order of the Delhi High Court granting bail to Kumar. Reading out the operative part of the judgment, Justice Karol allowed the petition filed by Sagar's father assailing the bail order. The judge said that Kumar must surrender within one week. Senior counsel Siddharth Mridul represented the deceased's father, Ashok Dhankad, while senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for Kumar in the top court. Kumar, along with several others, is accused of assaulting Dhankar and his two friends, Sonu and Amit Kumar, in the parking lot of Delhi's Chhatrasal Stadium on May 4, 2021, allegedly over a property dispute. Also Read: Subdued excitement shrouds Chhatrasal as Sushil gets bail Dhankar, a 23-year-old wrestler from Haryana's Rohtak, succumbed to injuries sustained in the assault, while his two companions were left injured. According to the post-mortem report, Dhankar died of cerebral damage caused by blunt force trauma. The incident sparked a massive manhunt for the Olympian, who evaded arrest for 18 days by moving across Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana. Delhi Police finally apprehended him in the city's Mundka area when he arrived to collect cash, travelling on a scooty borrowed from a national-level athlete. Following his arrest on May 23, 2021, Kumar was suspended from his Railways job and placed in judicial custody, where he remained until his bail order. In October 2022, a Delhi trial court framed charges against Kumar and 17 co-accused under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder, rioting, criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, robbery, and offences under the Arms Act. The Delhi Police charge sheet describes Kumar as the 'kingpin' of the conspiracy, alleging that he orchestrated the attack to reassert his influence in the wrestling community after rumours of his waning clout hurt his ego. Kumar has denied these allegations. In his bail plea before the high court, Kumar argued that he had already spent three and a half years in jail and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, given that only 31 of the 222 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. The high court, taking note of the prolonged incarceration and slow pace of the trial, had granted him bail. Kumar had won a bronze medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics and a silver at the 2012 London Games.
Economic Times
2 minutes ago
- Economic Times
The nearly 150-year old law that Trump is testing with domestic troop deployment
AP As President Donald Trump pushes the bounds of military activity on domestic soil, a debate has emerged over a nearly 150-year old law that regulates when federal troops can intervene in state issues. About 800 National Guard troops filed into Washington, D.C., on Tuesday after President Donald Trump said - without substantiation - that they were needed to reduce crime in the "lawless" national capital. Thousands of miles away, a judge in California is hearing arguments about whether the president's recent decision to federalize Guard personnel in Los Angeles during protests against immigration raids violated federal law. Trump has also created militarized zones along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a major shift that has thrust the army into immigration enforcement like never before. The cases in both California and Washington mainly hinge on Posse Comitatus Act, which passed in 1878 and largely prevents the military from enforcing domestic laws. Experts say that in both cases there are clear limitations to the law's enforcement. Here is what to know about the law. Posse Comitatus Act stops military from enforcing US law The Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute that prevents the military from enforcing domestic law. It also prevents the military from investigating local crimes, overriding local law enforcement or compelling certain behavior. Posse Comitatus can be bypassed by a congressional vote or in order to defend the Constitution. The Insurrection Act of 1807 can also trigger the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act and allows the president to deploy the military domestically in cases of invasion or rebellion. There is an exception for the U.S. Coast Guard, which has some law enforcement responsibility. The military is also allowed to share intelligence and certain resources if there is an overlwith civilian law enforcement jurisdiction, according to the Library of Congress. Law was enacted after Reconstruction era The law was enacted in 1878 following the post-Civil War era known as Reconstruction. Pro-segregationist representatives in Congress wanted to keep the military from blocking the enforcement of Jim Crow laws that allowed racial segregation. But the spirit of the law also has roots going all the way back to the Revolutionary War, when the founders of the United States were scarred by the British monarchy's absolute military control, said William C. Banks, a professor at the Syracuse University College of Law. "We have a tradition in the United States, which is more a norm than a law, that we want law enforcement to be conducted by civilians, not the military," Banks said. That ethos - ingrained in National Guard personnel starting in basic training - becomes especially powerful in the case of the Posse Comitatus Act, because the law has hardly been tested before now, said Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. "There is no authoritative precedent on exactly where these lines are, and so that's why over the years the military's own interpretation has been so important," Vladeck said. Law applies to 'federalized' troops The Posse Comitatus Act typically doesn't apply to the National Guard because members of the Guard report to the governor, not the federal government. But when Guard personnel are "federalized" they are bound by the act until they are returned to state control, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The state of California said in a federal lawsuit that the Trump administration violated the act when it deployed National Guard soldiers and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles following June protests over immigration raids. The Trump administration has argued that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply because the president used a provision known as Title 10 to federalize the troops. It allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country "is invaded," when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government," or when the president is otherwise unable "to execute the laws of the United States." Attorneys for the federal government also argue that the troops are not enforcing domestic laws and are only acting to protect federal property and agents. In Washington, by contrast, the president is already in charge of the National Guard and can legally deploy troops for 30 days without congressional approval. Vladeck said that both deployments over the past three months suggest that the Trump administration "appears to be trying to dance around the Posse Comitatus Act" rather than disregard it altogether. "There is a lot in the water about the Trump administration being lawless. What is striking is actually how much the administration is trying to wrap itself in the law," Vladeck said. Law depends on executive branch policing itself Beyond the legal exceptions written into the law, there is a practical question of how to enforce it, said Joseph Nunn, counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. Because the Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute, not a civil one, the U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for prosecution in criminal court, Nunn said. "It's premised on the executive branch policing itself," he said. That leaves unclear legal standing for whether a state government like California's has a right to sue in civil court in the first place. The ruling in the California case will likely be a narrow interpretation based on the circumstances of the Guard's deployment in Los Angeles, Vladeck said. But he said it could still dictate how the administration uses the Guard in other cities like Chicago and New York, where Trump has threatened to federalize troops next. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Regulatory gray area makes investing in LVMH, BP tough For Indian retail How IDBI banker landed plush Delhi properties in Amtek's INR33k crore skimming As 50% US tariff looms, 6 key steps that can safeguard Indian economy Jane Street blow pushes Indian quants to ancient Greek idea to thrive Stock Radar: Astra Microwave showing signs of bottoming out after 16% fall from highs; time to buy? F&O Radar | Deploy Broken Wing in Paytm to play stock's bullish outlook These 9 banking stocks can give more than 28% returns in 1 year, according to analysts Why 2025 Could Be The Astrological Turning Point We've Been Waiting For
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Shelter or vaccinate? Before deciding, India must count its stray dogs accurately
On August 11, the Supreme Court directed the Delhi government and local bodies to immediately capture stray dogs and put them in shelters. The Court was hearing a suo motu case on the increasing instances of stray dog attacks on children, including infants. The Court said, 'Not a single dog picked up shall be released back on the streets/public spaces.' The order has divided public opinion. While some people agree with it given the extent of the problem of dog bites, others have questioned the effectiveness of simply relocating dogs to shelters, pointing out that Delhi lacks shelters to keep so many dogs. Whether or not India has a stray dog problem, it certainly has a dog-counting problem. Getting that right could be key to making any policy, whether it is confining dogs or vaccinating them, effective. The most recent nationwide stray dog count is the Livestock Census of 2019. In fact, reports show that the Delhi-specific dog census was conducted even earlier, in 2016. So, in 2025, policies are being framed using estimates of the dog population based on an outdated censuses. More importantly, an analysis of the 2019 Census itself raises several questions. Take the case of Tamil Nadu. In 2019, there were 4.4 lakh stray dogs in the State. In the same year, according to data from the Integrated Disease Surveillance Platform, Tamil Nadu recorded 8.3 lakh dog bites. The chart below shows the number of dog bites and stray dogs in each State in 2019 In other words, that year, there were two dog bites for every stray dog in the State. Even allowing for the possibility of the same dog biting multiple people, the number of dog bites remains staggeringly high compared to the estimated dog population. In the case of Manipur, the 2019 Livestock Census recorded no stray dogs in the State. That data point alone is hard to fathom. Yet, that same year, Manipur reported around 5,500 dog bite cases. In Odisha, there were 17.3 lakh dogs in 2019. Odisha housed the second highest number of dogs among all the States. Yet, there were only 1.7 lakh bites that year in Odisha. If the data is correct, then States such as Tamil Nadu — which suffer 'severely' from dog bites with nearly 1,900 bites for every 1,000 dogs, as shown in the chart below — could learn from States such as Odisha, which report only about 100 bites per 1,000 dogs. The chart shows the number of dog bites for every 1,000 stray dogs in each State in 2019 Such knowledge-sharing could help address the crisis. The fact that this has not happened clearly points to a data mismatch rather than ground reality. Since all dog bites will be reported by the victims due to fear of rabies, and since hospitals are required to record these cases, the data mismatch likely lies in dog population figures. With the World Health Organization (WHO) estimating that 99% of human rabies cases are caused by the bite of infected dogs, India's National Action Plan for Dog-Mediated Rabies Elimination by 2030 had proposed strategic mass dog vaccination as the way forward in 2018. The plan had stated that vaccinating 70% of dogs and sustaining the effort for three years can eliminate rabies. The WHO also recognises this as a cost-effective strategy. Evidence from a data-driven rabies elimination programme in Goa, published in the journal Nature, showed that vaccinating 70% of the State's dogs eliminated human rabies cases by 2019 and reduced monthly canine rabies cases by 92%. The chart below shows the results from a data-driven rabies elimination programme in Goa show that vaccinating dogs helps reduce human rabies cases In fact, Goa recorded the highest number of dog bites per capita in 2019. As can be seen from chart below, there were 1,412 dog bites for every 1 lakh people in Goa in 2019, the highest among all the States. The chart shows the number of stray dogs and dog bites for every 1 lakh people in each State in 2019 The data for the charts were sourced from the Livestock Census-2019, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Some of the datasets were accessed through Dataful developed by Factly
