Today, On 18th July, Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, amid the controversy over Justice Yashwant Varma’s impeachment, clarified, “Govt has no direct role in this,” and stated that it is entirely up to Parliament and the MPs to act.
Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said that the government has no direct role in the possible impeachment process against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, or in the judge’s decision to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
He explained that both matters, the move to bring an impeachment motion and Justice Varma’s plea in court , are not connected to the government in any way.
Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal clarified that the decision to initiate an impeachment motion in Parliament against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court lies solely with the Members of Parliament, and the government has no role in it.
Responding to the opposition’s claims that the Union government is planning to remove Justice Yashwant Varma, Meghwal clarified that the government is not involved in either issue.
He stated,
“If Justice Yashwant Varma is approaching the Supreme Court or High Court about it, that’s his prerogative.”
Referring to the matter raised by Members of Parliament (MPs), Meghwal said that the second issue, too, is unrelated to the central government.
He added,
“The second issue, raised by MPs, is also not related to the government,”
Further explaining the legal and constitutional process for the removal of a High Court judge, the Union Minister pointed out that this is a matter strictly in the hands of Parliament.
He clarified,
“In fact, neither issue involves the government directly,”
He then elaborated on how the Constitution of India outlines the procedure for initiating such a motion.
Meghwal concluded,
“The Constitution allows Parliament to bring a motion for removal, 100 or more MPs must sign in the Lok Sabha, and 50 or more in the Rajya Sabha. So, this is entirely a matter for the MPs, not the government,”
Earlier, Justice Yashwant Varma moved the Supreme Court challenging a report of a three-judge panel that found him guilty in connection with the discovery of unaccounted cash at his residence. While the Union government is reportedly preparing to begin the impeachment process, the Union Law Minister’s statement aims to make it clear that the government is not playing an active role in either the impeachment move or the legal challenge filed by the judge.
The committee, which included Chief Justice Sheel Nagu from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia from the Himachal High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman from the Karnataka High Court, investigated the allegations related to the discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s residence.
They commenced their investigation on March 25 and completed the report by May 3, which was subsequently submitted to then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on May 4.
The report found the judge culpable, leading the CJI to forward it to the President while recommending Justice Varma’s impeachment.
Following this, he was transferred back to the Allahabad High Court, and an inquiry initiated by Khanna found him culpable.
After Varma refused to resign, Khanna referred the matter to the President and the Prime Minister.
The committee determined, based on forensic and electronic evidence, that the currency was secretly removed in the early hours of March 15, just prior to the matter becoming public.
A fire broke out at Justice Varma’s home on the evening of March 14, during which unaccounted cash was inadvertently found by firefighters.
Also Read: Plea in Allahabad High Court: ‘Withhold Oath of Justice Yashwant Varma’
A video depicting the recovery of the burnt cash was reportedly shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
At the time of the incident, Justice Varma and his wife were traveling in Madhya Pradesh, leaving only their daughter and elderly mother at home. On March 21, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) initiated an internal investigation into the allegations, appointing a three-member committee to carry out the inquiry.