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 findings.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 Khanna.advertisementWHAT 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 voluntarily.WHAT 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 Pradesh.Following 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 1999.POSSIBLE 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 witnesses.Possible 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 matter.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 record.The 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 removal.SIGNIFICANCE 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 judiciary.Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
US abortion rates rise three years after Dobbs' new ruling on Roe vs Wade, here's why
Three years after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade , the U.S. finds itself at the epicenter of a new abortion battle, one that's defying expectations and reshaping the strategies of both pro-life and pro-choice movements. Despite the pro-life victory in the courts, abortion rates have not dropped; instead, they've remained steady or even increased, raising provocative questions about the true impact of legal bans and the future of reproductive rights in America. The next big fight for abortion opponents is the organisation Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading provider and advocate of affordable sexual and reproductive health care, operates nearly 600 health centers across the country. The unexpected rise: Abortion rates defy pro-life predictions Contrary to pro-life hopes, the number of abortions in the U.S. has not declined post-Dobbs. Recent data from the Charlotte Lozier Institute shows over 1.1 million abortions occurred from July 2023 to June 2024, matching or exceeding pre-Dobbs levels. This estimate, based on the most comprehensive aggregation of clinic, hospital, and virtual provider data, highlights a resilient demand for abortion services even as legal landscapes shift. Researchers caution, however, that the true number may be even higher, as the U.S. lacks a federal abortion reporting mandate and medication abortions, especially those facilitated by international mail-order, are difficult to track with precision. The new battlefield: Pills, politics and laws The unexpected resilience of abortion rates is largely driven by the rise of medication abortion . With the FDA's approval for mail-order mifepristone, telehealth and shield laws have enabled access even in states with bans, and up to 20% of abortions in 2024 were provided via telehealth under such protections. This has allowed patients to bypass state restrictions, fueling what pro-life leaders call a "direct assault on the sovereignty of states." Live Events Pro-life advocates are now focusing on new priorities in response to these trends. Their big challenges, they say, include weakening Planned Parenthood, by targeting its funding streams. Restricting access to abortion pills remains a top objective, as does investing in supportive political candidates and ballot initiatives. Some pro-life lawmakers believe there is a strong chance of defunding Planned Parenthood through a broader reconciliation bill in Congress, which would block Medicaid funds for organizations performing abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother's life. Planned Parenthood, responding to these legislative moves, warned in a statement after the bill passed the Republican-led House in May that such provisions would cut off funding for a range of services beyond abortion, potentially forcing about 200 of its 600 locations to close. "If this bill passes, people will lose access to essential, often lifesaving care — cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing, and yes, abortion," the organization said. Meanwhile, other pro-choice groups are leveraging "shield laws" and ballot initiatives to protect and expand access, turning some states into abortion havens while others enforce near-total bans.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Unlawful adoption: Telangana HC rejects couple's plea for custody of 'purchased' baby; after police bust baby trafficking racket
HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court recently dismissed a petition filed by a couple seeking custody of a male infant they purchased from the infant's biological mother through an agent. The baby was rescued by police at Chaitanyapuri when they busted an interstate baby trafficking racket. Along with the infant's adoptive parents, the infant's biological mother also sought custody. However, the court noted that the child's adoption did not occur through the proper adoption guidelines. Rachakonda police, in March 2025, busted a child trafficking racket, rescuing 16 infants and arresting around 15 persons. The accused included the kingpin of the racket, K Krishnaveni, a 'supplier' from Gujarat named Vandana, their associates, and adoptive couples. The petition seeking the child's custody was filed by a Jeedimetla resident couple as well as the child's biological mother. Biological mom, adoptive couple were family friends Their counsel alleged that since the child's biological mother and the adoptive couple were family friends, they gave the child in adoption, a process approved by the Supreme Court in a similar case. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo Arguing that the child should not be deprived of parental care, they sought the child's custody. In response, the govt pleader opposed the petition, arguing that the couple had paid a large sum of money to the biological mother in exchange for the baby, and submitted to the court the couple's confession statement recorded at the time of their arrest. The confession statement clearly mentions how the couple were childless for over a decade since their marriage. The counsel also informed the court that after the child's rescue, his biological mother went absconding and did not respond to notices from the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). After hearing both sides, the high court noted that this cannot be a case of illegal detention of the child and observed that the couple did not follow the adoption rules according to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) and the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act. No legal standing established, says court The court also observed that the petitioners failed to establish their legal standing (locus) or provide consistent and truthful facts about the adoption and the biological mother. Furthermore, the adoption deed is unregistered and does not comply with legal requirements. The cited Supreme Court decision is also factually different and is not applicable to this case, the high court ruled. Maintaining that the child currently being in the custody of the Child Welfare Committee was safer and more legal, the court dismissed their petition.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Bengal to borrow Rs 4K cr for 25% DA pay to staff
KOLKATA: The West Bengal government has started preparations to approach the market this week to borrow approximately Rs 4,300 crore to pay the 25% Dearness Allowance (DA) to state government employees and pensioners, following a Supreme Court order issued on May 16. The state requires around Rs 10,425 crore to comply with the apex court's order by June 27; or else it may face contempt of court proceedings. On the contrary, complying with the order will push the state into a larger debt trap with a total outstanding debt of Rs 7,06,531.61 crore, as per the revised budget estimate for 2024-25. When the Mamata Banerjee government came into power in May 2011, the state had a total debt of around Rs 1.89 lakh crore. Over the last 14 years, the debt has nearly quadrupled due to inadequate mobilisation of financial resources and a significant jump in expenditure related to various welfare schemes, including 'Kanyashri', and 'Lakshmir Bhandar'. According to political observers, these schemes paid a huge dividend to Mamata Banerjee's All India Trinamool Congress in the electoral politics both in Assembly and Lok Sabha polls by securing most of the women's vote. However, at the same time, these schemes, along with 'Swastha Sathi', somehow depleted the exchequer somehow.
