NewKerala.com

Supreme Court Notice: Justice Varma's Battle Against Impeachment Panel

The Supreme Court has issued a notice on a plea filed by Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma. He is challenging the three-member committee formed to probe allegations after burnt cash was found at his official residence. The impeachment motion against him was admitted by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and backed by numerous MPs. The court has posted the matter for further hearing in early January.

Key Points: SC Issues Notice on Justice Varma Plea Challenging Probe Panel

  • Supreme Court bench seeks responses from Lok Sabha Speaker and Parliament secretariats on the plea
  • Justice Varma challenges constitution of 3-member statutory inquiry committee
  • Impeachment motion backed by 146 LS and 63 RS members, initiated by BJP's Ravi Shankar Prasad
  • Probe panel includes SC judge Justice Aravind Kumar and senior advocate B.V. Acharya
3 min read

SC issues notice on Justice Varma's plea challenging 3-member probe panel in cash discovery allegations

Supreme Court seeks response on Justice Yashwant Varma's plea challenging the 3-member committee probing cash discovery allegations. Hearing set for January 7.

"The committee will soon give its report, and till then the motion will remain pending. - Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla"

New Delhi, Dec 16

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea filed by Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the impeachment proceedings initiated against him.

Justice Varma has been at the centre of controversy since burnt cash was discovered on March 14 in an outhouse of his official residence, which had been allotted to him while he was serving in the Delhi High Court.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih sought responses from the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker and Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats and posted the matter for further hearing on January 7.

In his writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, Justice Varma has questioned the constitution of the three-member statutory inquiry committee announced by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to probe allegations arising out of the discovery of burnt currency at his official residence earlier this year.

On August 12, the Lok Sabha had read out the impeachment motion against Justice Varma, marking the beginning of proceedings under Articles 124(4), 217 and 218 of the Constitution for his possible removal.

The Speaker informed the House that he had received the motion on July 31, backed by senior BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad and supported by 146 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members. He said he had found "substance as per the rules" in the motion and admitted it for discussion.

Birla also announced the formation of a three-member committee comprising Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Maninder Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya to investigate the charges.

"The committee will soon give its report, and till then the motion will remain pending," he said.

Justice Varma has been at the centre of controversy since March, when bundles of burnt currency were discovered during a fire incident in an outhouse of his government-allotted residence in the national Capital, when he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court. Though he was not present at the time of the fire, a three-member in-house judicial inquiry later concluded that he exercised "secret or active control" over the cash stash.

Based on the inquiry report, the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna recommended initiation of removal proceedings.

In August this year, the Supreme Court dismissed Justice Varma's writ petition challenging the in-house inquiry. The apex court said that the in-house procedure laid down is "fair and just" and does not compromise judicial independence, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priyanka N
The process seems to be following the constitution, which is good. But why is the judge challenging the committee itself? If you have nothing to hide, you should cooperate fully. The committee has a Supreme Court judge too.
A
Aman W
Burnt currency in an outhouse? Sounds like something from a movie. 🧐 The in-house inquiry already found issues. The impeachment motion has support from many MPs. The law must be equal for everyone, judges included.
S
Sarah B
As an observer, I appreciate that the system is working. An allegation was made, an inquiry happened, and now a parliamentary process is underway. This shows institutional strength. The Supreme Court's notice is just the next step.
V
Vikram M
With all due respect, I have to question the timing and the political backing of the motion. 146 MPs signing it? This feels less about justice and more about politics. The committee must be extra careful to avoid any perception of bias.
K
Karthik V
The fact that the earlier petition was dismissed by the SC itself says a lot. The in-house procedure was deemed fair. Now challenging the parliamentary committee... it doesn't look good. Let the January 7 hearing bring clarity.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50