Latest news with #Tankha
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Congress: SC report can't be used for impeachment of Justice Verma
NEW DELHI: Amid speculations that the Supreme Court inquiry into Justice Yashwant Verma may form the basis for the impeachment proceedings, Congress MP Vivek Tankha Thursday shot off a letter to Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar flagging that the SC's inhouse report cannot be used for impeachment, and that due process under the Judges Inquiry Act would be required. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The view among the legal eagles in Congress is that moving on the SC probe would not stand the test of legality, contrary to the arguments that the use of the SC report would expedite the process of dismissing the judge. The view is also likely to be conveyed by the Congress to the government. Senior lawyer and Congress MP Abhishek Singhvi said that investigation report of the apex court is merely the institution's practice in cases of professional misconduct, and cannot substitute the legal processes. Singhvi said setting up a three-member inquiry committee, comprising a member of the Supreme Court, a high court chief justice and a distinguished jurist, is required under the Judges Inquiry Act. "The statutory three-member committee is a must. The in-house investigation is not statutory though it is must by the practice of SC. But it is a purely SC mechanism," he told TOI. Tankha wrote to Dhankhar, "Impeachment is a very serious matter where we have to clearly spell out charges and, therefore, it cannot be based on TV debates, social media narratives or unverified clippings. As an eminent legal luminary yourself, we are confident that you share our concern for the sanctity of the constitutional procedures." While the govt has announced an intent to remove Verma through impeachment in the monsoon session and is consulting the political parties, the opposition or the Parliamentarians have not yet submitted a motion on the issue. This is unlike the case of Justice Shekhar Yadav of Allahabad High Court, who triggered a controversy by making "hate speech" over the uniform civil code. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 55 opposition MPs from Rajya Sabha submitted a notice for his impeachment on December 13, 2024, but the RS is still to decide on it. Tankha said he is not sure if the government wants to help Justice Verma or impeach him by initiating the impeachment process on the basis of the SC's inhouse probe report. "The SC inquiry was for the benefit of the Chief Justice of India and the court judges. But it does not form the legal material for the Parliamentarians to move the motion for impeachment," he argued.
New Indian Express
05-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Congress MP seeks SC panel probe report
'When we submit a motion with our signatures, we have to give those facts leading to the charges. And then you have to say that under Article 124 or whatever article, these charges tantamount to constituting a case against the judge and he deserves to be removed,' he said. The Congress leader further said that there is a provision under the Judges Inquiry Act when such a motion is submitted to the vice president or the Speaker, he has to apply his mind whether it is authentic and deserves admission . 'There was an in-house inquiry by the Supreme Court. As an informed member of Parliament, I consider that impeaching a judge, whether High Court or Supreme Court, is a very serious motion. I'm not talking of just Congress, all MPs, whoever signs,' said Tankha.
Time of India
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Congress MP: Parliament must be given Yashwant Varma case report
NEW DELHI: Pressing for early action on the scandal about cash haul at the residence of high court Justice Yashwant Varma, Congress MP Vivek Tankha expressed concern with the Rajya Sabha chairman that parliamentarians have not been provided with the inquiry report of the case, even though Parliament is the sole authority to decide the fate of HC and SC justices facing allegations of malfeasance. The three-member SC panel that looked into the scandal submitted its report around three weeks ago. In a letter to RS chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, Tankha demanded that MPs be given a copy of the inquiry report without delay "to protect our judicial integrity and independence", as also to ensure that the issue moves forward. He added that delay in action in this case has eroded public confidence in the institutions. MPs are still unaware of the findings of the inquiry, even though Dhankhar himself had expressed shock when the issue was raised in RS on March 21, as per Tankha. Prefacing his letter with "deep concern for the institutional integrity of both the judiciary and Parliament", Tankha said, "No statement or course of action has been announced by the law minister, despite the matter - an incident that shook the conscience of the nation - having been raised in Parliament. This continued silence is deeply alarming and raises serious concerns about accountability." The MP, a senior lawyer, said the only statutory mechanism under which judicial misbehaviour can be investigated is Judges (Inquiry) Act and the removal of an HC or SC judge requires a motion initiated by MPs under the Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo "President cannot independently act upon the report. Only Parliament, through its members, can initiate removal proceedings," he added. "Despite MPs being only authority empowered under Article 124(4) and 217 (1) (b) to initiate such proceedings, they have neither been taken into confidence nor provided with the (inquiry) report...," he said. "A report exists but remains inaccessible to members of the constitutionally empowered body, i.e. MPs. This precedent undermines the doctrine of separation of powers in our democracy and devalues the constitutional position, role, and status of the members," Tankha added.
New Indian Express
23-04-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
SC asks Union Minister Shivraj Chouhan, Congress MP Vivek Tankha to amicably settle defamation case
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha to amicably settle the Asking both Chouhan and Tankha to amicably settle the defamation case, a two-judge bench of the top court led by Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal, said, "Please do not make us hear this case. Let us close it. Both of you sit together and settle this." During the course of a brief hearing, the apex court asked the senior lawyers Mahesh Jethmalani and Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chouhan and Tankha to sit together and settle the defamation case. Congress leader Tankha in his defamation complaint has alleged that Chouhan, BJP state president V D Sharma and former minister Bhupendra Singh carried out a "coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory" campaign against him for political mileage by accusing him of opposing OBC reservation in the 2021 panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh. The allegations were vehemently rejected by Chouhan and others. The Supreme Court had in March this year extended its November 11, 2024 interim order of granting exemption to Union Agriculture minister, Chouhan from personal appearance before a Madhya Pradesh trial court in connection with the criminal defamation case lodged against him and two other BJP leaders of Madhya Pradesh, by Tankha. Earlier on November 11, while granting relief to Chouhan and two other BJP leaders of Madhya Pradesh -- state president V D Sharma and former minister Bhupendra Singh -- the apex court in its order had stayed the execution of bailable warrants against them in the defamation case filed by Tankha. The apex court was hearing the appeal filed by Chouhan against the October 25 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refusing to quash the defamation case against him. Tankha, in his complaint in the trial court, had said there were defamatory statements made against him in the run-up to Panchayat elections in the state in 2021. On January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur decided to examine the plea filed by Tankha against the three BJP leaders under Section 500 (Punishment for defamation) of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) and summoned them.
Time of India
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC asks Shivraj Chouhan, Congress MP Vivek Tankha to amicably settle defamation case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha to amicably settle the defamation case lodged by the Congress lawmaker against the senior BJP leader. Congress leader Tankha has alleged that Chouhan, BJP state president V D Sharma and former minister Bhupendra Singh carried out a "coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory" campaign against him for political mileage by accusing him of opposing OBC reservation in the 2021 panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh. "Please do not make us hear this case. Let us close it. Both of you sit together and settle this," a bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal told senior advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chouhan and Tankha respectively. The top court was hearing Chouhan's appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court order last year refusing to quash the defamation case. 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Linda Kozlowski, 67, Shows Off Her Perfect Figure In A New Photo Today's NYC Undo On Wednesday, the bench advised both senior advocates to settle the case. "If he (Chouhan) expresses regret, I am willing to settle the defamation case," Sibal said. Why should the minister regret if there is no wrong, Jethmalani replied, adding that he personally has no problem in sitting with Sibal to discuss the case. Live Events The bench, which was conducting the proceedings through video conferencing, deferred the hearing to May 21. The bench recorded Sibal's statement that Tankha will not oppose Chouhan's plea in the trial court seeking exemption from personal appearance there on the next date of hearing. It had earlier extended its order exempting Chouhan from personal appearance before the trial court in connection with a criminal defamation case lodged against him by Tankha. Before this, the top court stayed the execution of bailable warrants against the three BJP leaders in the defamation case. It sought Tankha's response on the appeal of Chouhan and other BJP leaders. Jethmalani had said the purported statements mentioned in Tankha's complaint were made on the floor of the House and were covered by Article 194(2) of the Constitution. Article 194 (2) states, "No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings." It was unheard, Jethmalani submitted, that a bailable warrant was issued by the court in a summons case when the parties could appear through their counsel. He, therefore, sought a stay on the execution of a bailable warrant. Sibal had said they should have appeared before the trial court in the case, asking what the trial court would do if they did not appear before it. Jethmalani said the two statements alleged to be defamatory by complainant Tankha were of December 22 and 25, respectively in 2021 in a matter related to an apex court order staying the panchayat elections in the state. On October 25, last year, the high court refused to quash the defamation case lodged by Tankha against the BJP leaders. Tankha, in his complaint in the trial court, had said defamatory statements were made in the run-up to panchayat elections in the state in 2021. He alleged that following the December 17, 2021 order of the apex court it was alleged by the BJP leaders that he had opposed the reservation for OBC community in the local body polls which caused damage to his reputation. Tankha's plea sought Rs 10 crore compensation and initiation of criminal defamation proceedings against the BJP leaders. On January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur agreed to examine the defamation case against the three BJP leaders under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC and summoned them.
