Today, On 8th January, In the Justice Varma impeachment row, the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on his plea challenging the proceedings. The Court also denied any extension for his appearance before the three-member Lok Sabha probe committee.
Today, On 7th January, Justice Yashwant Varma told the Supreme Court that under the Judges Act a joint inquiry committee is required when both Houses move motions, arguing the Lok Sabha panel became non-est in law after the Rajya Sabha motion was withdrawn.
In the Justice Yashwant Varma row, lawyers have approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of the earlier ruling. They stated that “criminal law still not set in motion, bribe givers, bribe takers, fixers and brokers remain unscathed.”
In the cash discovery row, a Supreme Court-appointed panel stated the storeroom where burnt cash was found was “under active control of Justice Varma and family,” raising serious questions about the Allahabad High Court judge’s role.
The Allahabad High Court Bar Association President called the impeachment move against Justice Yashwant Varma “the victory of the public,” saying it restores trust in the judiciary and shows that people’s voices have truly been heard.
Vice President Dhankhar questioned the delay in FIR in the judge cash case, saying, “Who are the bigger sharks?” He noted the Supreme Court has acted but must now address legacy issues from the 1990s.
Today, On 19th May, Supreme Court to hear petition demanding FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma in alleged cash scandal. The plea seeks criminal action in connection with the controversy, raising serious questions over judicial conduct and accountability.
The Supreme Court of India declined to urgently hear a petition seeking an FIR against Judge Yashwant Varma over credible cash row claims. Petitioners stress the necessity of criminal proceedings, citing a favorable inquiry outcome. Despite the former Chief Justice’s recommendation for resignation, the Judge has not stepped down, intensifying the call for accountability.
Justice Madhav Jamdar of the Bombay High Court has initiated a police investigation into suspicious calls made to his wife, purportedly aimed at framing him after he issued strict orders against two lawyers. The inquiry, ordered due to concerns over judicial interference, will assess whether these calls were intended to intimidate him.
Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara petitioned the Supreme Court to reform the current collegium system and senior advocate designations, alleging favoritism and elitism. Despite being cautioned by the Chief Justice, he argued that the system unfairly benefits a small elite, violating constitutional rights. The petitioners demand an overhaul for enhanced judicial fairness and equality.
