Latest news with #RestatementofValuesofJudicialLife
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Cash-at-home case: SC panel proposes impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma - What probe report said
Yashwant Varma (File photo) High court judge Yashwant Varma and his family members had 'covert or active control' over the store room where a large stack of half-burnt cash was discovered, a finding that amounts to serious misconduct and justifies his removal from office, reported news agency PTI citing the inquiry panel's report into the incident. The three-judge inquiry committee, headed by Punjab and Haryana high court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, conducted the probe over ten days. The panel examined 55 witnesses and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11.35 pm on March 14 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 (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment. 'This committee thus holds that the cash/money was found in the store room of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi officially occupied by Justice Varma. More so, the access to the store room has been found to be within the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members and that by way of strong inferential evidence, it is established that the burnt cash/money was got removed from the store room during the wee hours of 15.3.2025 from 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi,' the panel noted in its detailed 64-page report. The report further stated, 'Keeping in view the direct and electronic evidence on record, this Committee is firmly of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations raised in the letter of the Chief Justice of India dated March 22, and the misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of Justice Varma...' The committee meticulously examined the testimonies of all 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma himself, following the procedure outlined by the in-house inquiry mechanism. Citing the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" adopted by the Supreme Court in its full court meeting in 1997, the panel concluded, 'It is obvious that all the virtues expected from a Judge are founded upon the concept of probity.' It observed that the standard of probity for judges is significantly higher than that expected of holders of civil posts. This expectation, the panel said, becomes 'predominant, relevant and indispensable' when concerning judges in the higher judiciary. 'The expectation of the general public from a member of the superior judiciary is extremely high. Probity is the most important and indispensable attribute of a person holding judicial office and is rather the basic eligibility criteria. Least that is expected of any judicial officer of district or higher judiciary is unimpeachable character and conduct in and outside the courtroom,' the report underlined. The panel pointed out that the legitimacy of the judicial office rests on public trust, and the degree of this trust is directly tied to the behaviour and conduct of the judge, both within and beyond the courtroom. 'Any deficiency in this regard erodes public trust, which ought to be viewed stringently,' the panel said as it recommended the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma. Besides Chief Justice Nagu, the inquiry committee included Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh high court and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka high court. The panel, which was set up by former CJI Khanna on March 22, had investigated the fire that erupted late at night on March 14 at Justice Varma's official residence at 30 Tughlak Crescent in New Delhi. What initially appeared to be a routine fire incident escalated into grave allegations of judicial misconduct and breach of public trust. Several eyewitnesses, including police officers and firefighters, informed the panel that they saw charred bundles of Rs 500 notes scattered on the premises. One eyewitness recounted being 'shocked' at the sight, stating, 'There was a large pile of cash… I saw it for the first time in my life.' The inquiry was structured around three key issues, all of which were examined in depth. The first question posed by the panel was, 'How does Justice Varma account for the presence of money/cash in the room (store room) located in his premises 30 Tughlak Crescent...?' Justice Varma was asked to clarify the origin of the money discovered at the scene. Another critical issue was, 'Who is the person who had removed the burnt money/cash from the store room in the morning of March, 15.' The panel expressed reservations about the testimony provided by Justice Varma's daughter, who was present at the residence on the night of the incident. 'From the demeanor of the witness, we noticed that she is a confident young woman, having been subjected to hostel life throughout her education apart from being an independent working woman. This belies her statement that she was totally overwhelmed and panicked by the incidents of the fateful night...,' the panel remarked. The committee also extensively analysed and rejected Justice Varma's defence, in which he claimed that the entrance to the store room was under constant CCTV surveillance and managed by security personnel, making it highly unlikely for cash to have been stored there.
Indian Express
7 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: Peer review is the proper channel
Arghya Sengupta begins his book Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary by juxtaposing the views of Jawaharlal Nehru and Justice Y K Sabharwal. Nehru upheld Parliament's supremacy, arguing that the judiciary could advise but not obstruct the legislative will in shaping the nation's future. In contrast, Justice Sabharwal underscored the judiciary's expanding role in securing good governance, highlighting how the Supreme Court has intervened in areas like environmental protection, electoral reform, and constitutional amendments to ensure the rule of law prevails. This tension reflects a fundamental shift. The recent disclosure of cash recovered from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has triggered a flurry of reactions: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns about the absence of punitive outcomes following an internal inquiry and cast doubts on the legal sanctity of in-house procedures. Following intervention from the Rajya Sabha, the SC dropped its inquiry into the alleged hate speech made by Justice Shekhar Yadav, sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, citing that the final authority lies with Parliament and the President. These instances beg the question: Who judges the judges? The judiciary forms one of the three pillars of a democracy and derives its authority from the Constitution. The outdated notion of legislative supremacy has now been replaced: The Supreme Court in Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1965) and People's Union For Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2005) recognised that the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution provides strong safeguards for judicial independence, including security of tenure, fixed salaries charged to the Consolidated Fund, protection from discussion in legislatures, and immunity under laws like the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Provisions for the removal of high court and SC judges by Parliament on grounds of 'proven misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' under Articles 124 and 217 create an accountability mechanism. Under Article 124(5), Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the procedures to investigate judicial misconduct. Further, on May 7, 1997, the SC's Full Court adopted the 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life'. It authorises the Chief Justice to constitute an in-house committee to investigate allegations against judges of the higher judiciary. This was recognised in C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995). The VP, in one of his latest speeches, spoke of the need to revisit K Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) in light of the controversy around Justice Varma's case. However, such arguments overlook the constitutional and legal procedures provided for investigating allegations against judges. The Constitution does not permit ad-hoc procedures in matters involving the higher judiciary. Even prior to the Constitution's enactment, the Government of India Act, 1935, provided for a judicial disciplinary committee comprising judges. After Independence, when then-MP Meghnad Saha complained against a judge, Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar refrained from immediate action. He sought the opinion of the CJI before proceeding. While drafting the Judges Inquiry Bill, 1964 under Article 124(5), eminent legal figures like C K Daphtary and G S Pathak emphasised that complaints against judges should originate from MPs, not the executive, and be submitted to the Speaker or Chairman. If accepted, a three-member judicial committee would investigate the charges. Only if the committee finds the judge guilty may Parliament initiate a debate; otherwise, the motion is dropped. This framework was upheld in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India (1991), wherein the Court highlighted practices from countries like the US, Canada, and Australia, where initial investigations are conducted by a judicial body, with legislative involvement occurring later. In Veeraswami, the Court held that judges can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but only with presidential sanction after consultation with the CJI. This ensures accountability and judicial independence. In Justice Varma's case, any investigation must be initiated through a motion in Parliament, followed by a judicial inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. As the Court held in the Sub-Committee case, such inquiries are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be replaced by political or administrative processes without violating constitutional safeguards. Harry T Edwards, Chief Justice of Appeals for the District of Columbia, noted in a 1989 paper that 'the ideal of judicial independence is not compromised when judges are monitored and are regulated by their own peers'. The Supreme Court in A M Bhattacharjee noted that 'peer review' is in the best interest of judicial independence and in consonance with international practices. The Law Commission of India in its 195th Report recommended the Judicial (Inquiry) Bill 2005, establishing the National Judicial Council, which was to consist of five judges, with the CJI as chairman. The Commission noted that this practice of inquiry finds its roots in various international principles like the Siracusa Principles (1981) and the Latimer guidelines for the Commonwealth (1998). The judiciary, like any other institution, must be held accountable. But that accountability must be enforced within a constitutionally protected framework that ensures independence from political pressures. The rule of law demands not just that justice be done — but that it be done through proper channels, and equally for all. The writer is assistant professor, Jindal Global Law School
India Today
12-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Watch
