Latest news with #AllahabadHighCourt
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Three-member Parliament panel likely to probe charges against Justice Varma
A three-member inquiry committee is expected to be formed soon to examine allegations against Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, following the submission of a motion in both Houses of Parliament earlier this week, news agency PTI reported on Thursday, citing sources. The motion—signed by 152 Members of Parliament (MPs) and submitted to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on July 21, the opening day of the Monsoon session—has triggered consultations among senior leaders across both Houses, the report added. The Rajya Sabha also received a similar notice on the same day, signed by 63 opposition MPs. The report stated that the speaker Birla is likely to write to the Chief Justice of India to seek nominations for two members of the panel: one from the Supreme Court and one high court chief justice. The Speaker will also appoint a distinguished jurist of his choice to complete the three-member committee. Former Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar had referred to the Judges (Inquiry) Act during Rajya Sabha proceedings on Monday, highlighting that when motions are submitted simultaneously in both Houses, a joint process must be followed, PTI reported. Background The controversy began after bundles of burnt and partially burnt cash were found at Justice Yashwant Varma's official residence earlier this year. Following this, an in-house committee of judges was set-up to probe the matter. It submitted a report recommending the impeachment of Justice Varma. Justice Varma, however, has now moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the report. On July 23, the apex court said it would constitute a bench to hear his plea.
The Print
19 hours ago
- Politics
- The Print
Can govt appoint trustee of Banke Bihari temple, HC asks UP govt
According to the amicus curiae, 'The temple is a private temple and the religious practice is being carried out by the heirs of the late Swami Hari Dasji. By the issuance of the ordinance, the government is trying to take control over the temple through the back door.' The amicus curiae apprised the court that according to the ordinance, there would be two kinds of trustees of the board — nominated trustees and ex-officio trustees. The nominated trustees will be the seers, gurus, scholars, mathadhish and mahants etc. from the Vaishnav tradition as well as followers of the Sanatan Dharma. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, after hearing amicus curiae Sanjeev Goswami, fixed July 30 as the next date of hearing on a petition filed by Pranav Goswami and another. Prayagraj (UP), Jul 23 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has sought a reply from the Uttar Pradesh government on whether it can appoint its officials as trustees of the Banke Bihari temple in Mathura, a private temple, by the issuance of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. However, he raised strong objections as to the seven ex-officio trustees, who are officials like the district magistrate, the special superintendent of police and the municipal commissioner of Mathura, which he said would amount to a back-door entry by the state government in the private temple. 'The creation of such a trust amounts to intruding into the Hindu religion by the state government. The Constitution does not provide for the State to practise any religion and take control of any temple,' the amicus curiae said. The court, in its order dated July 21, sought the state government's reply and observed, 'The matter requires consideration. Hearing to continue. Put up this case as fresh on July 30, 2025. By that time, the state government would respond to the argument which has been raised by the amicus curiae. PTI COR RAJ RC This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hindustan Times
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
CJI Gavai to set up bench to hear justice Varma's plea
Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai on Wednesday said he would constitute a bench to hear the petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, but clarified he would not be part of it. Justice Yashwant Varma (PTI) Justice Varma sought an expedited hearing of his plea challenging the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry panel that concluded there was 'strong inferential evidence' of his 'covert or active control' over a stash of charred cash found at his official residence in Delhi (when he was posted at the Delhi high court) earlier this year. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, mentioned the matter before the CJI and urged for early listing, citing important constitutional issues involved in the case. The CJI agreed but said it would not be proper for him to be part of the hearing bench, given his previous involvement in internal discussions surrounding the case.'I think it will not be proper for me to take up that matter because I was part of that conversation,' remarked the CJI, but assured that a bench would be constituted to take it up. The development comes even as the central government plans to bring an impeachment motion in Parliament to remove Justice Varma from office. As the monsoon session of Parliament is underway and political momentum builds for his removal, 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha lawmakers submitted separate notice in their respective Houses for impeachment of Justice Verma on July 21 – the first day of the current session. As reported first by HT, Justice Varma moved the apex court on July 17, filing a writ petition challenging the May 3 report by a three-member judicial inquiry panel and the subsequent May 8 recommendation by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Terming the panel's report 'unsustainable' and the process 'perverse,' the petition alleged grave violations of natural justice and accused the committee of functioning with an 'outcome-driven approach' based on a 'preconceived narrative.' The panel, Justice Varma said, failed to investigate foundational facts such as ownership, authenticity, and actual recovery circumstances of the charred cash allegedly found on March 14 at his Delhi residence following a fire. While acknowledging that some currency may have been recovered from the outhouse, the judge maintained that further inquiry was essential to establish culpability. Instead, the panel concluded its proceedings hastily, the petition claimed, reversing the burden of proof and placing the onus on the judge to disprove misconduct. The inquiry committee, comprising then high court chief justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana), GS Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka high court), was formed on March 22 and submitted its findings to CJI Khanna on May 3. Justice Varma's petition also challenged the then CJI's May 8 recommendation to Parliament, arguing that it was based solely on an inquiry report that violated constitutional protections afforded to sitting judges. The Supreme Court's May 8 press note confirmed that Justice Varma had submitted a written response to the inquiry report, reiterating his denial of any wrongdoing and terming the allegations a 'conspiracy.' However, the top court noted that the judge had essentially restated his earlier stand. During the in-house inquiry, Justice Varma was divested of all judicial work and transferred back to his parent high court in Allahabad. He was serving on the bench of the Delhi High Court when the Marc 14 incident took place. The 64-page inquiry report cited 'strong inferential evidence' to conclude that Justice Varma had 'covert or active control' over the charred cash. While admitting that no direct evidence linked him to the currency, the panel held that his conduct 'belied the trust' reposed in a constitutional judge and warranted impeachment proceedings. 'The burden shifted upon Justice Varma to account for the money by giving a plausible explanation, which he failed to do, except projecting a flat denial and raising a bald plea of conspiracy,' the report said. The committee concluded that even if the money had been stored without his explicit knowledge, its presence in his official residence 'eroded public trust' and constituted judicial misconduct of a grave nature. As first reported by HT on June 18, Justice Varma had earlier rejected CJI Khanna's suggestion to resign or opt for voluntary retirement. In a detailed letter dated May 6, the judge accused the panel of procedural violations and asked the then CJI to reconsider both the process and the outcome. The fire incident at Justice Varma's residence on March 14 triggered the entire sequence of events. According to officials, sacks filled with charred currency notes were found at the outhouse of his Delhi bungalow by firefighters. Chief justice of Delhi High Court flagged the issue to the CJI, leading to the formation of the inquiry panel.
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
HC rejects Abdullah Azam's petitions in fake passport, PAN card cases
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday dismissed two petitions filed by ex-MLA Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan, son of senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, challenging the proceedings of criminal cases against him in the matter of alleged fake passport as well as PAN cards. The court directed the Rampur's MP/MLA Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the instant application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed," Justice Sameer Jain said. Justice Jain had reserved this judgment after hearing both sides on July 1. Abdullah had filed two petitions in the high court. The first was related to Abdullah's alleged fake passport while second concerned two PAN cards. In first case, the BJP MLA Akash Saxena had filed a criminal case against Abdullah at the Civil Lines police station in Rampur on July 30, 2019, concerning fraud and violations of the Passport Act for allegedly obtaining a passport using an incorrect date of birth. He accused Abdullah of obtaining a passport using false documents. The allegation is that the educational certificates and the information provided by Abdullah Azam to the passport authorities were different. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Speed up your Mac and free up storage with Space Lens MacPaw Read More Undo According to the complaint, Abdullah was issued passport on Jan 10, 2018. The passport lists Abdullah Azam's date of birth as Sep 30, 1990, whereas his educational certificates show it as Jan 1, 1993. Regarding the dual PAN cards case, Saxena had filed an FIR against Abdullah and his father senior SP leader Azam Khan at the Civil Lines police station in Rampur on Dec 6, 2019, concerning the possession of two PAN cards. The case was registered under IPC sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 471 (using forged documents), 468 (forgery for cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security) and 420 (cheating). Saxena alleged that Abdullah had furnished an incorrect PAN number in his election affidavit during the 2017 assembly elections. He claimed Azam Khan got two PAN cards made for his son through fraud to enable him to contest elections. According to him, Abdullah allegedly concealed this fact in the affidavit submitted to the election commission. He showed one PAN number in the affidavit but used another PAN number in his income tax return (ITR) documents.
NDTV
a day ago
- Politics
- NDTV
"Fraud And Justice Can't Dwell Together": Top Court Recalls Compensation Order
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday recalled its order on compensation awarded over a land in Gautam Budh Nagar in Uttar Pradesh acquired by the Noida authority, saying it was obtained by fraud and has to be erased from the records, being a nullity. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujal Bhuyan and Dipankar Datta adjudicated the dispute over the ownership of land, which was purchased by three people - Reddy Veerana, Vishnu Vardhan and one T Sudhakar - in 1997, and acquired by Noida in 2005 and now forms part of Noida's commercial hub in Sector 18. It was alleged that Mr Veerana fraudulently claimed sole ownership of the land in several proceedings before diverse judicial fora, from civil courts to the high court and to the Supreme Court in 2022, when the top court had passed an order for enhanced compensation to Mr Veerana. Mr Veerana was alleged to have fraudulently ousted Mr Vardhan and Mr Sudhakar and pocketed the compensation amount. Vishnu Vardhan contested the claim of Mr Veerana by initiating several proceedings and sought a recall of the May 2022 order of the court. Justice Datta, who penned the verdict for the bench, said from the multiple decisions of this court on "fraud, what follows is that fraud and justice cannot dwell together". "The legislature never intends to guard fraud, the question of limitation to exercise power does not arise, if fraud is proved, and even finality of litigation cannot be pressed into service to absurd limits when a fraud is unravelled." The order added, "However, even if Vishnu had not applied for a review - as a logical corollary of the aforesaid discussions - the decision in Reddy Veerana (2022 verdict), too, having been obtained by Reddy by playing fraud, has to be erased from the records being a nullity." The bench also set aside the Allahabad High Court's October 28, 2021, verdict, which accepted Veerana as the sole owner of the property and enhanced the compensation from Rs 152.04 per sq. metre to Rs 1,10,000 per sq. metre, saying the fraud had vitiated the entire proceedings. "As a logical corollary of the impugned order being set aside, it would follow that the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana (2022 verdict), upholding the same, which too was obtained by playing fraud, will also be a nullity, and thus stand recalled in exercise of our inherent powers," the bench ordered. Referring to a 1994 verdict of the top court, the bench said that fraud was held to be an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by "taking unfair advantage of another: a deception to gain by another's loss". "We begin with recording the realisation that undoubtedly, there seems to be much more than what has met our eyes. However, like all courts, we are bound to decide cases based on the evidence on record, judicially noticeable facts, and the applicable law. Despite Reddy and Vishnu – and to a certain extent Sudhakar – having used the judicial process obviously to secure their personal interests, we cannot be bystanders," it said. The verdict continued, "If things have happened with a telling effect on public interest, resulting in public funds from the public exchequer being drained, the same has to be dealt with within the bounds of our jurisdiction. In our pursuit for the truth and to uphold the rule of law, we must adhere to established principles unless a valid reason warrants deviation.' The top court remanded the case back to the high court with a direction to implead Vishnu Vardhan and T Sudhakar, the other two owners of the land, as additional respondents.
