Today, On 16th January, Supreme Court rejected Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to set up a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges Inquiry Act. The Bench delivered its ruling after reserving judgment on January 8, and declined interference.
Kapil Sibal criticized the Supreme Court’s internal report on Justice Varma, asserting it lacks constitutional authority for impeachment. He emphasized that investigations into judges must follow the Judges Inquiry Act, accusing the government of misusing the process. Sibal lamented the selective treatment of judges and insisted only Parliament can initiate impeachment motions.
Justice Yashwant Varma faces impeachment proceedings after a Supreme Court committee found serious misconduct, including unexplained burnt cash at his residence. The committee determined he did not adequately explain the cash’s origins and recommended removal. The Supreme Court has since transferred him but not assigned new duties, leaving further action to the government.
Congress MP Manish Tewari moved an adjournment motion in the Lok Sabha, calling for a discussion on alleged irregularities in the higher judiciary. Emphasizing the gravity of the issue, he urged the government to provide a comprehensive statement on the matter. Tewari stated that the issue holds national importance as it directly impacts the integrity, impartiality, and fairness of judicial processes. His motion seeks to bring transparency and accountability to the judicial system.
Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar recently stated in the House that an impeachment notice against Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Shekhar Yadav, submitted by Opposition MPs in December last year, is still pending with him. He emphasized that only Parliament has the constitutional authority to remove a High Court judge.
Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar stated that only Parliament has the power to decide on the removal of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. His remarks came after 55 opposition MPs submitted a notice seeking the judge’s removal over alleged misconduct. He emphasized that such matters must follow constitutional procedures. The issue has sparked political debate, with legal experts closely watching the developments.