Indira Jaising criticized the Supreme Court judges’ visit to Manipur, questioning their priorities. She remarked that while a “fire is burning in their backyard” in Delhi, six judges, including collegium members, traveled to Manipur. She urged them to first address pressing issues at home before extending relief elsewhere. Jaising emphasized that the “burning question” must be answered.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising has strongly criticized the recent visit of six Supreme Court judges, including collegium members, to Manipur.
Expressing her concerns, she remarked,
“While there is a fire burning in their backyard in Delhi, six Supreme Court Judges including collegium judges go off to Manipur! Let’s try to clean up our own store rooms before we provide relief to refugee camps in Manipur. The ‘burning question’ must be answered.”
Jaising’s statement raises questions about the judiciary’s priorities at a time when pressing legal and constitutional matters are unfolding in the national capital. The visit to Manipur coincides with the 12th anniversary celebrations of the Manipur High Court, during which the judges are also set to inaugurate legal and medical aid camps.
The cash discovered following a fire in the official house of Justice Yashwant Verma , which prompted family members of the judge who was out of the city at the time to call emergency services, leading to police involvement.
Upon learning of the situation through official channels, the Collegium, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, opted to transfer Justice Verma.
The Supreme Court Collegium decided to transfer Justice Yashwant Verma from the Delhi High Court back to his parent High Court Allahabad. Sources informed that this decision came after a significant amount of unaccounted cash was found in his official bungalow last week during the Holi holidays.
Also Read: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising Opposes Interviews for Senior Designation in Supreme Court
Earlier, Indira Jaising is a senior Indian lawyer and human rights activist known for her work in constitutional law, women’s rights, and judicial accountability remarked,
“A retired Sessions Court judge who convicted Sanjeev Bhatt is now being considered for a High Court appointment. Meanwhile, a High Court judge is found with a ‘pile of cash’ in his burning house. Have we lost the independence of the judiciary?”
As of now, Justice Verma has not commented on the cash discovery.
In 1999, the Supreme Court established guidelines for addressing allegations of corruption, misconduct, and judicial irregularities involving judges of the Constitutional Court.
According to these guidelines, upon receiving a complaint, the Chief Justice first seeks a response from the judge in question. If the Chief Justice is not satisfied with the reply or believes further investigation is warranted, he will form an internal committee.
This committee is composed of one Supreme Court judge and two High Court Chief Justices. Once the committee submits its report, if the Chief Justice determines that the alleged misconduct is serious enough to warrant removal, he will request the judge to resign. Should the judge refuse, the Chief Justice will then notify the government to initiate removal proceedings through Parliament, as stipulated in Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
Also Read: [Breaking] No Cash Found at Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma’s Home: Fire Department
Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution deals with the procedure for the removal of a Supreme Court judge. It states that:
- A Supreme Court judge can be removed only by an order of the President.
- The removal must be based on proved misbehavior or incapacity.
- This order must be passed after an address by Parliament, supported by a special majority (a majority of the total membership of each House and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting).
This provision ensures judicial independence by making it difficult to remove judges without strong and justified reasons.