Latest news with #Article32
India Today
14 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
Justice Varma case: Top court says in-house procedure is ‘law of land', reserves order
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, who had challenged the findings of an internal inquiry committee and questioned the legality of the in-house procedure followed against him. His petition also raised objections to the Chief Justice of India's recommendation to the President and Prime Minister regarding his removal in the cash-haul Defends CJI's Role & Existing MechanismThroughout the hearing, the bench subjected the judge's legal team to sharp scrutiny, questioning the timing, strategy, and delayed challenge to a mechanism that has been in place for its position clear, the Supreme Court remarked: 'In-house procedure has been put into place by judgments, it is the law of the land.' Stressing on the binding nature of judicial precedents, the court added: 'You have to accept previous rulings unless you come in review.' Addressing arguments challenging the legality of the CJI's role, the court firmly defended the Chief Justice's powers: 'The CJI is not a post office. He has responsibility to the citizens as head of the judiciary.' Further, the bench noted: 'If there is material to believe there is misconduct, the CJI can inform the President, PM.'On whether a law could empower the Centre to remove a judge, the court clarified: 'If, under a law, the Centre was empowered to remove a judge, they can, but there is no law. If a law is made, it will have to be tested.'Court Flags Delay, Reinforces Institutional ProcedureIn response to Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal's submission that it had now become a political process and Justice Varma had already been prejudiced, the court remained unmoved, stating: 'The Committee's report is only preliminary. It cannot affect future proceedings. If it does, you will have to come at the appropriate time and against the appropriate parties not against SC.'The court repeatedly flagged the timing of the challenge. 'Why didn't you come earlier if procedure was unconstitutional?' the bench asked. Referring to the public release by the Supreme Court of the tapes involving Justice Varma, it said: 'According to you, you were condemned in public when the tapes were released on the website. You should have come then.'The court, however, did indicate that it was in agreement with Justice Varma's counsel on the issue of tape release timing—'We will be with you on timing on this part, it should not have been done.'Court Questions Justice Varma's ConductadvertisementIt further remarked: 'You could have got some observations from the court then, whatever observations you are seeking now.' Questioning the judge's conduct, the court added: 'Your conduct says a lot, you could have come earlier. It is possible you wanted to have a favourable finding.'Observing that the conduct of a person who is invoking Article 32 is also important, the court pointedly asked: 'Why did you appear? You knew what it could have led to.'The bench emphasised that the in-house procedure had stood the test of time: 'It has been in place for the last 30 years. All judges take an oath; all judges know how their conduct will be regulated. This is the law, you are bound by it, you took an oath.'During the hearing, the bench also drew a distinction between initiating removal proceedings and the act of removal itself. 'Initiating action for removal and removing him are different things. The CJI, being bound by the in-house procedure, has done exactly that,' the court Observations Before Order ReservedAddressing the constitutional challenge raised in the plea, the bench said, 'You are saying it's unconstitutional to a certain extent — that is for us to decide.' At this stage, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal interjected, saying, 'I'm getting a sense of how the court is inclined to decide'advertisementResponding to the concern, Justice Dutta remarked, 'I asked you this last time — if a well-meaning citizen approaches the Lok Sabha and asks why no action is being taken, it is seen as political. But we have no jurisdiction there.' Emphasising institutional responsibility, he added, 'As far as the judiciary is concerned, it must send a clear message to society — that whatever the procedure was, it was duly followed.'With the order now reserved, all eyes remain on whether the court will offer any relief — or simply reaffirm the authority of existing judicial procedure.- EndsTune InMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
SC reserves verdict on Justice Varma's plea against panel findings
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's challenge to an in-house inquiry panel's report that found him involved in the cash discovery matter. The court questioned Justice Varma's decision to participate in the in-house inquiry committee proceedings without contesting its validity at that stage. 'Your conduct does not inspire confidence. We did not want to say this, but your conduct says a lot. You could have come. There are judgments which say that once you submit to the authority, there is a possibility that you may have a favourable finding, and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here. A person who is invoking Article 32 jurisdiction — conduct is also relevant,' Justice Datta said. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A G Masih heard the matter. The bench also heard a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Yashwant Varma, said that the Judges (Inquiry) Act occupies the entire field relating to the removal of a judge, and hence an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge's removal. 'If an in-house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, then it is violative of Article 124,' he argued. Article 124 of the Constitution deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Datta then pointed out that the in-house procedure has its origins in judgments delivered by the Supreme Court. Justice Varma also challenged the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. His plea alleges that the panel's findings were based on a 'preconceived narrative' and that the adverse findings were drawn without affording him a full and fair hearing. 'Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But the judiciary has to send a message to society that the process has been followed,' the bench said. The bench pointed out that the Chief Justice of India post is not supposed to be a post office only. 'He (the CJI) has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come before him (regarding misconduct), the CJI has the duty to forward them to the President and the Prime Minister. If, on the basis of the material, it is found that the misdemeanour is so serious as to call for action, he would be affirming the earlier decisions of this court saying the CJI has the authority to do so,' Justice Datta said. He further stated that the 'in-house procedure' was the law laid down by the Supreme Court as per Article 141. However, the bench agreed with Sibal's argument that the videos showing burning of cash currencies should not have been leaked during the procedure. The in-house inquiry committee had examined 55 witnesses and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11.35 pm on March 14, 2025, at the official residence of Justice Varma, then serving in the Delhi High Court and now a judge of the Allahabad High Court. Based on the panel's findings, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
The Print
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Print
10 convicts from Jharkhand, including 6 on death row, move SC over long-pending verdict on appeals
Monday, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant took serious note of the petition and issued a notice to the Jharkhand HC for its response. According to the petition, jointly filed by the convicts, verdicts in eight cases were reserved more than three years ago. Judgments in the remaining two have not been pronounced despite a lapse of 2-3 years. New Delhi: Ten convicts from Jharkhand, including six who are on death row, have moved the Supreme Court, complaining against the delayed disposal of their appeals by the state HC. The petition raises important questions regarding convicts' rights to personal liberty and procedural fairness under the criminal justice system. It argues that convicts too have the right to live with dignity under the Constitution. Prolonged delay in disposal of their appeals is antithetical to Constitutional as well as statutory rights. Incidentally, this is the second time that convicts from Jharkhand have sought the top court's intervention in pending verdicts on their appeals filed against trial court decisions. In the previous round, four convicts had filed writ petitions under Article 32—a remedy under the Constitution to move the top court directly for enforcement of a fundamental right. Subsequent to the apex court's notice, the HC had delivered its verdict for all four, resulting in acquittal in three cases. In the fourth case, the HC had referred the case to a third judge due to a difference of opinion between the two judges. Nonetheless, the convict in the fourth case was released on bail immediately. Taking note of the inordinate delay on the part of the state HC, Justice Kant's bench had asked its registrar general for a detailed report on the status of such cases, if any. Notably, all the 14 cases that have reached the top court were heard by a division bench of two judges. As per the Jharkhand HC website, Justice Rongon Mukopadhyay led the two-judges bench that heard and then reserved the verdict in these matters. Only the junior judges were different. Justice Mukopadhyay also heads the High Court Services Legal Committee—a legal aid body that provides free legal services to marginalised sections of the society. Three of six death row convicts, who filed their appeals in the HC in 2018, are facing death sentence in rape cases. One of the 10 petitioners has been in jail for more than 16 years and had filed his appeal in the HC in 2013. Six have been in jail for more than a decade, with two having spent more than 15 years behind bars. The remaining three have been in jail for 6 to 8 years now. The petitioners, who moved their petition through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC), were represented in the top court by advocate Fauzia Shakil. Before moving the SC, the petitioners and their families repeatedly raised the issue of delayed verdicts with multiple authorities, including the Chief Justice of the HC. They also wrote to the Chief Minister's office and legal aid bodies such as NALSA, state as well as district legal services authority. The delay is not just a procedural violation, but a breach of a statutory mandate too. The petition pointed out that as per the Jharkhand HC rules, a judgment should ordinarily be pronounced within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments. If not pronounced within three months of the conclusion of the arguments, the Chief Justice may either post the case for delivering the judgment in an open court or withdraw and post it for disposal before an appropriate bench. In terms of the statutory mandate, the rape appeals ought to have been disposed of within six months of the filing of the appeal. Under the Criminal Law (Amendment Act), 2018, which came into effect on 21 April 2018, with the insertion of sub-section (4) in section 376 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc), an appeal filed against the sentence imposed under the rape law must be disposed of within six months from the date of filing of an appeal. The petition is also an attempt to seek correction of earlier Supreme Court judgments that have given relief to death row convicts only when there is delay on the part of the President or Governor in deciding mercy petitions, observing inordinate delay in the execution of death sentence causes mentally agony. Ironically, these judgments have excluded the impact of protracted delays in judicial proceedings, such as confirmation of death sentences or adjudication of criminal appeals, on a convict's mental health and dignity. Courts have criticised the executives—President and Governor—for their inexplicable delay in deciding mercy petitions of death row convicts while commuting them to life sentences, but have refrained from taking into account the judicial impasse that has forced prisoners to remain incarcerated for prolonged periods. Rather, judicial decisions have held that a convict is not under immediate threat of execution when his/her appeal is a subject of judicial consideration, meaning pendency of their case in a court does not affect them psychologically. 'It is further submitted that mere availability of judicial remedies does not eliminate the mental anguish; in fact, protracted delays in judicial proceedings exacerbate the suffering, as the convict is kept in a state of suspended animation—neither assured of life nor facing immediate execution,' the petition has submitted. 'It is respectfully submitted that the pendency of death sentence confirmation hearings or criminal appeals, particularly in cases involving capital punishment, is not a period of calm or relief. Rather, it is a period of uncertainty and anxiety. The convict remains incarcerated under the shadow of a potential execution despite the existence of legal remedies,' it added. Delay in pronouncement of judgments is not just a violation of the right under Article 21, but is a crucial factor for suspension of the sentence, the petition has argued. (Edited by Viny Mishra) Also read: Why Supreme Court hasn't confirmed a single death sentence in the last two years
Hans India
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Supreme Court To Hear Challenges Against Bihar's Electoral Roll Revision
Multiple petitions challenging the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls are scheduled for hearing in the Supreme Court today. The legal challenge comes from various quarters including transparency advocacy group Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and several political parties who have termed the exercise both "arbitrary" and "unconstitutional." The controversy centers around the Election Commission's June 24 announcement of a comprehensive revision of voter lists ahead of Bihar's assembly elections scheduled for October-November. This Special Intensive Revision represents an unprecedented approach where all registered voters must re-establish their eligibility through fresh documentation and applications. The Election Commission has defended this exercise by pointing to several factors including rapid urbanization and migration patterns, the need to include newly eligible 18-year-olds and previously unregistered citizens, unreported deaths in voter records, and concerns about foreign illegal immigrants appearing on voter rolls. The commission aims to complete draft electoral rolls by August 1, followed by a period for objections and scrutiny. Opposition parties and civil society groups have raised serious concerns about the implementation and potential consequences of this revision. They argue that the process fundamentally shifts the burden of proof onto individual citizens, requiring them to submit fresh applications with documentary evidence of citizenship by July 25, 2025. The requirements exclude commonly held documents like Aadhaar cards and ration cards, instead mandating proof of parents' identity and other documentation that may be difficult to obtain. The petitioners argue that this approach violates Article 32 of the Constitution and undermines the universal right to adult suffrage. They contend that given Bihar's high rates of migration and displacement, requiring documents dating back decades could potentially disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. The timeline for completion has also been criticized as unrealistic, requiring the training of approximately 100,000 Block Level Officers within a month during Bihar's monsoon and flood season. The legal challenge has been accompanied by political protests, with the INDIA bloc organizing a 'Bihar bandh' on July 9 to oppose the revision exercise. Opposition leaders including Congress's Rahul Gandhi and RJD's Tejashwi Yadav have participated in demonstrations against what they view as a systematic attempt to manipulate voter rolls. The Election Commission has remained firm in its position, citing Article 326 of the Constitution which defines voter eligibility criteria. The commission has also claimed that over 57% of the state's 7.9 million current voters have already submitted new enumeration forms, with scrutiny of these applications now underway. The Supreme Court's decision on these petitions could have significant implications for how electoral roll revisions are conducted across India and may influence the timeline for Bihar's upcoming assembly elections.
Time of India
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
‘Great danger to democracy': Mahua Moitra moves SC over EC's voter list revision in Bihar; calls it ‘crazy exercise to disenfranchise'
NEW DELHI: Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has moved the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of India 's (ECI) move to conduct a special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, calling the process a direct threat to democratic rights. In a scathing critique, Moitra accused the poll body of acting at the behest of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and attempting to disenfranchise millions, particularly migrant and poor voters. "The All India Trinamool Congress under the leadership of Mamata Banerjee has pointed out the great danger to democracy which is the new special intensive revision that the Election Commission has started in Bihar and plans to start in Bengal right after and in other states as well," Moitra said. "I have petitioned the Supreme Court last night on this and it is violative." Moitra argued that the process violates multiple constitutional provisions — Articles 14, 19 and 21 — as well as Articles 3, 325 and 326. 'This special intensive revision is violative… It is also against the Representation of People's Act 1960 and the Registration of Electors Rules,' she said. According to her, the SIR introduces 11 new documents as proof of eligibility — none of which includes commonly used IDs like Aadhaar or ration cards. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo 'Now apart from your birth certificate, no other document like a matriculation certificate or a PSU card gives you the place of birth,' she said. Moitra warned that the requirement to establish parents' place of birth in some cases both parents would disenfranchise 'two and a half to three crore people in Bihar' and could soon be applied in Bengal as well. 'This is completely against the rights of the poor migrant workers who will have no opportunity in the short time frame to actually have to download forms and upload them again. I mean, this whole thing is a crazy exercise and its only goal is to disenfranchise voters,' she said. Moitra added that the ECI had strayed from its mandate: 'Instead of doing that, the Election Commissioner of India has taken it upon itself to become an arm of the BJP… This is a great shame.' PTI reported that Moitra's petition, filed under Article 32, also seeks to stop the ECI from issuing similar directives in other states. A similar plea has been filed by the Association of Democratic Reforms, warning that the exercise could 'arbitrarily and without due process' remove lakhs of names from the rolls. Defending the revision, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar said nearly every political party in Bihar had raised concerns about inaccuracies in the voters' list, prompting the EC to act. He stressed that those who were listed in the 2003 roll need not submit any birth-related documents. But for those born after 1987, documents proving a parent's place of birth are required, and for those born after 2004, proof for both parents is necessary. The EC insists that the exercise is intended to weed out ineligible and non-resident voters, including illegal immigrants. The revision, which began on June 24, is scheduled to run until July 25, and is being carried out by over one lakh booth-level officers across Bihar.
