Latest news with #Sibal
NDTV
11 hours ago
- Politics
- NDTV
On Allahabad High Court Judge's Impeachment, Congress Sends 'Reminder'
New Delhi: The Congress on Friday 'reminded' Rajya Sabha Chair Jagdeep Dhankhar to act on a six-month-old notice to impeach an Allahabad High Court judge accused of making communal remarks. The opposition party's nudge follows strong remarks by Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal about Mr Dhankhar's lack of action in this matter. He also accused the government of trying to 'shield' the judge. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav is staring down the barrel of an impeachment process after 55 MPs - five over the threshold to begin his removal - sent that notice to the House Chairperson. At least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign a motion - a record of the intention to impeach - for the matter to proceed further. In the Lok Sabha that number is 100. NDTV Explains | How To Remove Sitting Supreme Court Or High Court Judge Once that threshold is reached, the Chair of the former or the Speaker of the latter, depending on which House first admits the motion, will decide whether or not to carry the issue forward. In this case the motion to impeach was submitted on December 13, 2024. The file has been pending since, prompting Mr Sibal's sharp words and Congress' 'reminder'. Mr Sibal, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court, pointed out swifter action had been taken in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma, the former Delhi High Court judge caught in the cash-at-home row. Sources told NDTV the delay might be because 19-21 signatures on the motion had yet to be verified. Also, the possibility that one MP signed twice had to be ruled out, sources explained. A detailed verification of these signatures is ongoing, sources said. Mr Sibal, though, demanded to know why this process needs to take six months. "I want to ask those sitting in Constitutional posts... their responsibility is to verify if signatures are there... should that take six months? Is this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," he was quoted by news agency PTI. READ | Plea Against Justice Shekhar Yadav's Impeachment Motion Rejected In January the Rajya Sabha's pending action on this matter had been challenged in the Allahabad High Court. A PIL demanded the court issue direction to the Rajya Sabha to not act on the proposed impeachment. However, the PIL was rejected because it did not constitue a public interest issue. What Justice Shekhar Yadav Said The judge was speaking at an event organised by the legal cell of right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Prayagraj on December 8, when he said, "I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan... this country would function as per the wishes of the (majority)... This is the law." READ | High Court Judge Says Law Works Per Majority, A Owaisi Reacts His remarks (there were more, including comments on Islamic practices such as Halal and polygamy) were condemned by AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi and others who asked how members of any minority community might expect justice from such a judge. "In a democracy the minority's rights are protected... this speech raises questions... How can a minority expect justice before someone who participates in VHP programs?" he asked. Supreme Court Acts But... The Supreme Court took notice and directed the Allahabad High Court to provide details and, on December 17, the Collegium, headed by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar heard from Justice Yadav, who argued the media had selectively quoted him to create 'unnecessary controversy'. However, the Collegium refused his explanation and reprimanded the judge, reminding him the conduct of a judge is always under scrutiny and that he is expected to maintain a standard. The Collegium, though, was blocked from taking further action because the MPs' impeachment motion had already been initiated; the letter to the Rajya Sabha was sent December 13. According to Mr Sibal this was because the Rajya Sabha Secretariat wrote to then Chief Justice directing him to not take action against Justice Yadav becase of the pending impeachment notice.
Indian Express
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: In-house inquiry is not immunity
The discovery of burnt currency at the residence of a sitting judge on the night of March 14 has caused cracks in the faith that the public has in the judiciary, the integrity of institutions and the perception of justice in a democratic society. Certain efforts appear to have been made to heal the injury caused by this incident by initiating an in-house inquiry. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) quite diligently constituted a panel of three senior judges. The committee has given its report to the Chief Justice, who has submitted it to the President of India. It is reported that on the basis of the findings arrived at by the panel of judges, the CJI has recommended the removal of the judge through impeachment. On June 10, an Independent member of the Rajya Sabha and former law minister, Kapil Sibal, claimed that any motion to impeach the judge on the basis of the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry would be unconstitutional. Sibal's view is well-founded. The in-house committee has conducted the procedure to satisfy the need for a regular inquiry under The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Act stipulates the procedure for an investigation by a committee into allegations of misbehaviour by — or incapacity of — a judge. A House or both Houses of Parliament can take up a motion of impeachment only after such an inquiry. The inquiry under the 1968 Act is, however, not relevant for assigning criminal liability if the proven misbehaviour also falls within the definition of a crime. In this case, no FIR has been registered so far. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, while addressing the Times Now Summit 2025, stated that without the permission of the Chief Justice of India, in the matter relating to the discovery of burnt currency notes from the residence of the judge, no FIR can be registered — nothing can be seized in the absence of an FIR. In light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991), sitting judges of high courts and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution, including the registration of an FIR, without prior consultation with the CJI. This is necessary to protect the judges from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment. The CJI must assess the veracity of the allegations against a sitting judge, to advise the President on the need for an FIR. The in-house inquiry is essentially meant for this purpose. By no stretch of the imagination can the law laid down in Veeraswami be a tool to protect a judge from criminal liability. Our criminal law is competent enough to take necessary care of every eventuality. The discovery of the burnt money from the house of a sitting judge potentially constitutes several offences under various laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Income Tax Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The offences under all the above enactments are serious and mostly cognisable. With respect to the March 14 incident, according to media reports, the firefighters first informed the police, including the Delhi Police commissioner. The police team reached the spot, and upon arrival, some photographs were taken and a video was recorded. However, the police did not register any case despite being under the obligation to do so under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This could have been done without naming the judge and without including him in the list of the accused. According to Section 173 of the BNSS, the police, on reaching the scene of the crime, should have secured the area to prevent tampering, destruction or contamination of evidence. As per Section 175, the officer conducting the investigation should have recorded observations regarding the physical evidence available and also drawn a site plan or sketch with photographs and videos. Under Section 176 of the BNSS, the police officers should also have collected physical and digital evidence and should have preserved the same for the use of forensic experts. The police had the duty to protect the crime scene and preserve evidence to ensure a fair trial, as and when that takes place. Adherence to this procedure is fundamental to our criminal jurisprudence and to maintaining public confidence in our justice system. In this case, though certain photographs were taken and a video was recorded, no further care appears to have been taken to protect the scene of the crime and the relevant evidence. The burnt currency wasn't seized immediately and debris was reportedly removed by unknown persons. These are serious breaches. The registration of a case was necessary for an effective investigation. The law laid down in Veeraswami and other Supreme Court guidelines do not restrict the police from taking these necessary measures and registering a criminal case. The failure of the police to take all these measures has caused significant damage to the investigation. It is also strange that no criminal case has been registered even after the submission of a report by a panel of judges holding the judge concerned guilty. The writer is former Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court
Time of India
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Kapil Sibal alleges bias in handling of Justices Varma, Yadav cases
New Delhi: Independent MP and senior lawyer Kapil Sibal has alleged "discrimination" in the attitude of Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar for citing information which is "in public domain" to write to the Chief Justice of India, through the RS Secretariat, to halt the (judiciary's) in-house proceedings against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav , who is facing charges of hate speech. However, Sibal alleged that the same stance has not been applied by the Chairman in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma , in the 'currency seizure' case. Sibal warned the government of opposition if an attempt is made to impeach Justice Varma on the basis of the 'in-house proceedings' (SC-appointed panel) report, saying such a course will be tantamount to by-passing the proceedings of the Judges Inquiry Act (of conducting an independent panel's inquiry into the charges in impeachment motion) and would thus be in violation of the Constitution besides endangering the independence of the judiciary . by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mundfalten "bügeln" mit TV-Tipp (Löwen) | bedrop Undo Addressing mediapersons on Tuesday, Sibal wondered why the government was trying to "save" Justice Yadav and asked why the RS Chairman and secretariat have not yet completed the process of verification of the pending impeachment motion signed by 55 Opposition MPs even six months after its submission.
The Hindu
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
Time of India
03-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Bangladeshi woman deported, sone moves Supreme Court
SC seeks Union's response; plea challenges 'push back' NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre's response to a petition by a man alleging that his mother, released after detention of three years following a Foreigner Tribunal identifying her as a Bangladeshi, may have been forcibly pushed into Bangladesh despite her plea against the tribunal's order pending in SC since 2017. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Appearing for Iunuch Ali, senior advocate told a partial working day bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and A G Masih that she was picked up by Dhubri police and allegedly pushed back into Bangladesh. 'How can the Dhubri SP determine whether she is a Bangladeshi immigrant? Was she produced before a magistrate after being detained? The son does not know her whereabouts. The Centre must inform him about her whereabouts,' Sibal said. SC issued notice to Centre on this plea. Sibal also questioned the 'push back' of illegal Bangladeshi migrants and this is unknown to the process of law. He said the only legal process available is 'deportation'. The petitioner said, 'The law does not recognize push back, i.e arresting foreign nationals and taking them to the international border and either casting them away or pushing them across international borders without any verification and acceptance by the authorities of the other country. This is illegal, not permitted by any law.' Petitioner's mother Monowara Bewa was declared a foreigner by Dhubri Foreigners Tribunal on March 17, 2016. The Gauhati HC upheld the tribunal's order on Feb 28, 2017. Her appeal against the HC order is pending adjudication in the SC for the last eight years. In the meantime, the SC in another case in 2019 ordered that foreigners cannot be kept in detention indefinitely and must be either deported to their native country or released on bail. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The Centre had said that deportation is dependent on the host country accepting their citizen. Based on this 2019 judgment, Bewa was released in Dec 2019. She was detained again on May 24, as the drive against illegal Bangladeshi immigrants picked pace after the terror attack on tourists at Pahalgam and the 'Op Sindoor' by Indian armed forces against terrorist bases in Pakistan. The petitioner said her detention was in violation of her rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
