Latest news with #ex-Delhi
NDTV
28-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
How Do You Remove Sitting High Court Judge? Impeachment Process Explained
New Delhi: The government is considering impeachment charges against Justice Yashwant Varma, the ex-Delhi High Court judge from whose home burnt bundles of cash were allegedly found in March. The piles of charred cash - photos of which were shared online - were discovered by firefighters in the smouldering remains of an outhouse attached to his allotted bungalow in central Delhi. Justice Varma has firmly denied any link to the cash, calling allegations of impropriety against him and members of his family " preposterous", and spoken of a 'conspiracy' against him. He has also refused to resign, despite a damning report by a three-member judicial panel. In May, President Droupadi Murmu was advised to begin the impeachment process. Sources said the impeachment process will likely begin in the second half of July, when Parliament convenes for the monsoon session, unless Justice Varma stands down before then. READ | Impeachment Motion Likely Against Justice Varma In Cash-At-Home Row The government is reportedly keen on garnering support from all parties, including the opposition, and is expected to consult them on the first draft of the impeachment motion. What Is Impeachment? It is a constitutional mechanism to remove a sitting judge - specifically those from the Supreme Court or a state High Court - from his/her office. Once appointed, judges cannot be removed from office without an order from the President, who, in turn, requires consent from Parliament. The Constitution does not actually refer to the word ' impeachment ', but the procedure to remove judges is outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 and mentioned in two constitutional provisions - Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 218 (for those from High Courts). How Is Impeachment Done? An impeachment motion can be introduced in either House of Parliament. At least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign the motion - which is a record of the intention to impeach - for it to proceed further. In the Lok Sabha that number is 100. Once that threshold is reached, the Chair of the former or the Speaker of the latter, depending on which House admits the motion, will review the available materials. At this stage s/he may reject the impeachment motion. If it is passed, then either the speaker or the Chairperson writes to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to nominate a three-member panel to investigate the charges. Burnt bundles of cash were found at the home of the former Delhi High Court judge. This panel will consist of either the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or a top court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist, who can be nominated by the government. If this committee finds the charges against the judge to be true, both Houses will vote on removing the judicial officer, starting with the one in which the motion was first introduced. In each case it must pass by special majority. That is, at least two-thirds of those present and voting must be in favour and these votes must be over half the House's total membership. Then, and only then, will the President remove the judge - i.e., impeach him/her. Has Any Judge Been Impeached? No. No judge in independent India has been forcibly removed from office. Should Justice Varma not stand down of his own volition, he will have the unfortunate distinction of being the first. There have, however, been five times impeachment was a possibility. The first instance was Justice V Ramaswami of the Supreme Court in 1993 and, most recently, an attempt was made to impeach former Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra in 2018. In the first case, Justice Ramaswami was accused of financial and administrative irregularities during his time as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The impeachment, however, failed after MPs from the then-ruling party, the Congress, abstained from voting. In the last-recorded case, ex-Chief Justice Mishra was accused of administrative misconduct and arbitrary allocation of cases. There were political undertones to the impeachment bid, which failed after the Vice President, then Venkaiah Naidu, rejected the motion. In-between, there were two separate impeachment bids in 2011 and a fifth in 2015. The 2015 impeachment was a bid to remove Gujarat High Court judge Justice SB Pardiwala for remarks about reservation for marginalised communities. But the notice was later withdrawn. In 2011 Justice PD Dinakaran of the Sikkim High Court (previously the Karnataka High Court Chief Justice) and Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court faced impeachment. The former was accused of judicial misconduct and the latter was found guilty of misappropriating public funds before being appointed a judge. Both resigned before their respective impeachment processes could be completed.
NDTV
21-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
'Go To PM, President...': Supreme Court Junks Plea In Delhi Judge Cash Case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has junked a plea to file a police case against Justice Yashwant Varma, the ex-Delhi High Court judge from whose home burnt bundles of cash were allegedly found in March, when a blaze at an outhouse on the grounds of his bungalow was being extinguished. A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan pointed out a report has been submitted to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Droupadi Murmu. And, since the petitioner had filed no representation before those two, the court could not hear their plea. "Before seeking writ of mandamus (i.e., a judicial order compelling a lower court or government official to perform a duty) the petitioner will have to seek redressal by filing representation before appropriate authorities... we decline to entertain this petition," the top court said. The petitioners, advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three others, had called for immediate criminal proceedings against Justice Varma on grounds the judiciary's in-house committee, which had been set up by the Supreme Court, found the allegations to be prima facie true. According to legal news website Live Law, when the court began hearing this matter, Mr Nedumpara was told, "We are not saying you cannot file... you don't know the contents of the (in-house) report. We also don't know the contents of that report. You make a representation to them (i.e., the Prime Minister and President) to act. If they don't, you can come here." In March, the same petitioners had moved the Supreme Court to challenge the in-house inquiry and demanding a formal police investigation. Then too the court had dismissed their plea, noting that internal proceedings against Justice Varma were still pending. On the night of Holi, March 14, firefighters had been called to Justice Varma's bungalow in central Delhi. As they put out a fire, burnt bundles of cash were allegedly found in an outhouse. The controversy surrounding Justice Varma and the recovered bundles of cash sparked serious discussions on several topics, including investigations and disciplinary action against judges, functioning of the Supreme Court Collegium, and the need for a transparent judiciary. In the initial aftermath, the Supreme Court decided to transfer Justice Varma to his parent court - the Allahabad High Court - in a move that was first connected to the cash but later de-linked. However, acknowledging the gravity of the issue and the impact on the people's faith in the judiciary, the top court set up an in-house inquiry by a committee consisting of the chief justices of the Haryana and Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Karnataka High Courts. This was after a Delhi High Court report was made public - an unprecedented act - to ensure transparency in these proceedings.
Indian Express
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Kejriwal, Sisodia ‘missing', disquiet grows in Delhi AAP: ‘Abandoned by leadership'
THE defection of the 13 rebel Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillors of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), who announced the formation of their breakaway outfit Saturday, has brought the growing fissures within the Delhi AAP to light. With this exodus, the AAP's strength in the 250-member MCD, a key body that oversees civic projects in Delhi, has plunged to 100. In contrast, the BJP's tally now stands at 117. In the MCD polls held in December 2022, the AAP had clinched a majority, securing 134 seats as against the BJP's 104. The Congress had won nine seats, while the remaining ones were picked by the Independents. With the anti-defection law not applicable to the MCD, the defection of the councillors cannot be challenged, thereby spelling further trouble for the AAP which lost power in Delhi in the February 2025 Assembly polls after a decade-long rule. The 13 AAP councillors' revolt came ahead of the MCD's zonal ward committee elections for the posts of the Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons. This is a crucial process that includes voting to fill two seats on the MCD Standing Committee, an 18-member body that holds significant financial power as it oversees all civic projects exceeding Rs 5 crore. Due to a tug of war between the AAP and the BJP, the Standing Committee has remained non-functional since the MCD elections in December 2022, leaving many crucial aspects of civic governance in limbo. Several AAP councillors told The Indian Express on the condition of anonymity that party supremo and ex-Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's 'limited public appearances and interaction with AAP rank and file' in the wake of the party's Assembly poll defeat at the hands of the BJP has left the AAP workers 'demoralised'. Kejriwal has since spoken to the AAP workers only twice: on Shahidi Diwas and Dr BR Ambedkar's birth anniversary. An AAP councillor said the defection of his colleagues was not a 'surprise'. 'We saw this coming… There has not been a single post-election dialogue held by the party leadership with the Delhi councillors for months… We are fighting daily battles at the municipal level without any direction from the top,' the councillor said. Senior AAP leaders, including Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia and ex-minister Satyendar Jain, have been currently focusing on Punjab, the lone state where the party now rules, frequently camping there. While Sisodia is the AAP in-charge of Punjab, Jain is his deputy in the state. This leaves a leadership vacuum in Delhi, where the party's morale and control have seen a steady erosion. Several AAP activists admitted to feeling 'abandoned' by the leadership. Led by Moralband councillor Hemanchand Goyal, the rebel group submitted a signed statement to the MCD Saturday, citing 'disillusionment with the AAP's leadership and the breakdown of internal coordination' as primary reasons for their move. The most notable defection is that of Mukesh Goel, the AAP's former leader of the MCD. A former Congress leader who joined the AAP ahead of the 2022 MCD polls, Goel was seen as one of the party's key faces in the municipal body. 'We were elected on the AAP's ticket in 2022, but since then, the top leadership failed to maintain any coordination with us. The promises made to the public remained unfulfilled. We felt we were being used only for optics,' said the joint letter submitted by the councillors. The defectors, who have now formed a new outfit, called the Indraprastha Vikas Party (IVP), include councillors from Bankner, Vasant Vihar, Sadar Bazar, Vikas Puri and Mayur Vihar, among others. They say the IVP will operate as an independent front and will be restricted at the MCD level, positioning itself as a 'strong and constructive opposition.' The AAP has accused the BJP of allegedly engineering defections through financial inducements. 'Each councillor was offered Rs 5 crore,' the AAP alleged, adding that the BJP was trying to gain 'backdoor control' of the MCD ahead of the crucial Standing Committee and ward committee elections. The BJP's MCD Mayor Raja Iqbal Singh, however, dismissed these allegations. 'AAP's internal chaos, not BJP, is the reason behind this breakaway. They failed to even maintain basic sanitation during their tenure. This is a result of their own misgovernance,' he said. Delhi Congress chief Devender Yadav also took a swipe at the AAP, calling the defection 'a reflection of the party's decaying leadership structure under Kejriwal'.
Indian Express
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Why among action against its leaders, the case against Saurabh Bharadwaj will hurt poll-hit AAP
The Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has faced another setback as the BJP-led Delhi government's Directorate of Vigilance (DoV) has sought permission from the Centre to initiate an inquiry against AAP leaders and ex-health ministers Saurabh Bharadwaj and Satyendar Jain for their alleged involvement in irregularities in the construction of 24 hospitals worth Rs 5,590 crore sanctioned during 2018-19 in the national capital. According to officials, the DoV sought permission from the BJP-led central government to probe Bharadwaj and Jain – who had been ministers in the previous AAP-led Delhi government – under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Delhi government's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) has claimed that it has 'prima facie' found evidence of cost inflation, delays, and misallocation of funds in the sanction and construction of 24 hospitals across the city. While several senior AAP leaders, including ex-Delhi chief minister Kejriwal and ex-deputy CM Manish Sisodia, have been facing corruption charges in connection with the Delhi liquor policy 'scam', this is the first time that Bharadwaj has been accused of corruption by an agency. Unlike Jain, who has been facing multiple graft cases being probed by various central agencies – and has also served jail for a long time after being arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case in 2022 – Bharadwaj has until now enjoyed a clean image, who has been known as a 'media-savvy AAP troubleshooter' and a 'policy-focused leader' in the AAP circles. The Delhi government's move against Bharadwaj in an alleged graft case also puts a break to the slight momentum the AAP seemed to have gathered after its debacle in the Delhi Assembly polls earlier this year. The polls saw the AAP losing power to the BJP after three consecutive stints at the helm of the Delhi government, getting just 22 seats out of 70 as against the BJP's 48. After facing the loss, Kejriwal carried out a major reshuffle of the party office-bearers. Sisodia was named as the AAP's Punjab in-charge, while Jain was appointed the party's Punjab's co-incharge. Currently, Punjab is the only state where the AAP is in power. Bharadwaj was appointed the Delhi AAP president. With the AAP being the principal Opposition in Delhi now, Bharadwaj's task is cut out as he has been trying to rally the party workers and galvanise them in order to take on the BJP government effectively. With Bharadwaj facing a corruption probe, however, the morale of the Delhi AAP's rank and file is likely to be dampened further. And with Jain staring at a fresh case of alleged corruption, the Punjab AAP may also face heat as it gears up for the next Assembly elections slated for early 2027. The complaint in the alleged hospital construction scam was lodged by BJP MLA Vijender Gupta, who is currently Delhi Assembly Speaker, with the ACB in August 2024, accusing the then AAP government of allegedly indulging in irregularities in 24 hospital projects through 'deliberate delays' and 'inflated costs'. In his complaint, Gupta flagged consistent patterns of financial misconduct, alleging 'inflation of the project costs, deliberate delays by departments, rejection of cost-effective solutions, misallocation of funds, and creation of idle assets' that led, he charged, to a massive loss to the government exchequer. The ACB sent its report to the DoV in January this year. The ACB serves as the primary investigative unit of the state Vigilance department and reports to it. The DoV has now sought permission for a sanction from the President to enable the ACB probe against Bharadwaj and Jain in the case. It would spell further trouble for the AAP if the Centre gives its go-ahead to the Vigilance department. The AAP has rejected corruption allegations against both its leaders in the case as false. The party has maintained that these hospital projects were necessary to boost health infrastructure in Delhi, claiming that they paid off during the Covid-19 pandemic. As the pandemic broke out in 2020, seven of these hospitals were supposed to set up about 7,000 ICU beds to deal with the heavy inflow of patients. However, none has been completed so far. 'Projections in 2020 suggested Delhi would need 80,000 beds, including ICU capacity. The government mobilised its limited resources accordingly. Once the (Covid) threat subsided, priorities changed,' the AAP said in a statement. The AAP claimed that 'no revised file' with the inflated costs had reached the ministers, and blamed the BJP-led Centre for allegedly 'withholding' funds and 'weaponising' investigative agencies. AAP leaders see the Delhi government's move as part of a 'larger pattern of sustained institutional pressure on AAP', especially after the arrest of key leaders including Kejriwal and Sisodia, who have been out on bail now. 'Deadline shifts and cost increases are common in government projects across departments… Rather than accusing us of corruption, the BJP should carry out an inquiry at the bureaucratic level,' Bharadwaj told The Indian Express.
