NEW DELHI: A petition by Allahabad HC’s Justice Yashwant Varma for quashing of an inquiry report on discovery of sacks of money in his official residence, based on which then CJI Sanjiv Khanna recommended stripping of him of judgeship, will face an uphill ‘maintainability’ test at the threshold before Supreme Court.
Ahead of the monsoon session of Parliament commencing on Monday, parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju said over 100 MPs had signed a notice to bring a removal motion in Lok Sabha, Justice Varma’s petition could become infructuous if SC does not list it for hearing prior to the motion being tabled in Parliament.
A motion for removal of a constitutional court judge requires signatures of 100 MPs if it is moved in Lok Sabha and 50 MPs if it is presented in Rajya Sabha. Interestingly, the SC registry has pointed out several defects in Justice Varma’s petition to advocate-on-record Vaibhav Niti, who has to race against time to get these cured and make the petition eligible for listing before a bench.
Even if the petition gets cured of the defects and is listed for hearing before a bench, it would face many questions about its maintainability given the facts of the incident of March 14, the statements of first responders confirming the presence of sacks of half-burnt currency notes and the conduct of the judge as well as his private secretary after the fire incident in cleaning up the storeroom in the early hours of March 14 after police and firemen left the scene.
Justice Varma raises a question as to why the police did not seize the cash and why they did not prepare a ‘panchnama’ (independent witness statements corroborating discovery of cash). For a week from March 15 till March 22, when the inquiry committee was appointed, why did Justice Varma keep silent and not register an FIR with police seeking a thorough investigation as to who planted the cash at his residence to frame him?
Instead, he, in his petition, faults the inquiry committee for failing in its duty to find out how the cash came into his residence and who were the people responsible for it. It would have given credibility to his stand had he filed an FIR asking the police to find out who planted the cash and how the fire took place. But he did nothing even as evidence of burning cash was uploaded on SC website on orders of then CJI Khanna.
Interestingly, a strong counter-point to Justice Varma’s plea is provided in a PIL filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara, who said, “The presence of huge volumes of cash running into crores of rupees, that too at the official residence of a judge of Delhi HC, who decides commercial matters involving hundreds and thousands of crores, whose residence is secured 24/7 by CRPF, would lead to irresistible conclusion that the money which happened to catch fire is illegal money and the judge and the bribe giver, both, have committed offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, PMLA, BNS and other laws, which render it obligatory on the part of the police to register an FIR.”
Ahead of the monsoon session of Parliament commencing on Monday, parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju said over 100 MPs had signed a notice to bring a removal motion in Lok Sabha, Justice Varma’s petition could become infructuous if SC does not list it for hearing prior to the motion being tabled in Parliament.
A motion for removal of a constitutional court judge requires signatures of 100 MPs if it is moved in Lok Sabha and 50 MPs if it is presented in Rajya Sabha. Interestingly, the SC registry has pointed out several defects in Justice Varma’s petition to advocate-on-record Vaibhav Niti, who has to race against time to get these cured and make the petition eligible for listing before a bench.
Even if the petition gets cured of the defects and is listed for hearing before a bench, it would face many questions about its maintainability given the facts of the incident of March 14, the statements of first responders confirming the presence of sacks of half-burnt currency notes and the conduct of the judge as well as his private secretary after the fire incident in cleaning up the storeroom in the early hours of March 14 after police and firemen left the scene.
Justice Varma raises a question as to why the police did not seize the cash and why they did not prepare a ‘panchnama’ (independent witness statements corroborating discovery of cash). For a week from March 15 till March 22, when the inquiry committee was appointed, why did Justice Varma keep silent and not register an FIR with police seeking a thorough investigation as to who planted the cash at his residence to frame him?
Instead, he, in his petition, faults the inquiry committee for failing in its duty to find out how the cash came into his residence and who were the people responsible for it. It would have given credibility to his stand had he filed an FIR asking the police to find out who planted the cash and how the fire took place. But he did nothing even as evidence of burning cash was uploaded on SC website on orders of then CJI Khanna.
Interestingly, a strong counter-point to Justice Varma’s plea is provided in a PIL filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara, who said, “The presence of huge volumes of cash running into crores of rupees, that too at the official residence of a judge of Delhi HC, who decides commercial matters involving hundreds and thousands of crores, whose residence is secured 24/7 by CRPF, would lead to irresistible conclusion that the money which happened to catch fire is illegal money and the judge and the bribe giver, both, have committed offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, PMLA, BNS and other laws, which render it obligatory on the part of the police to register an FIR.”
You may also like
Yorkshire skincare brand shoppers 'wish' existed 'when my breakouts were bad as a teen'
Dad's desperate plea to find son who vanished 20 years ago after never arriving at work
Stop pasta water from boiling over the pan every time with simple kitchen item
I removed a year of toilet limescale in under 24 hours - only 1 solution worked
South Korea: New finance minister vows swift trip to Washington for tariff negotiations
