Supreme Court dismisses Justice Varma's petition, upholds enquiry in cash haul case

India Today

The Supreme Court has pronounced its verdict in the Justice Yashwant Verma matter, dismissing his petition. The court upheld the legality of the in-house inquiry procedure and its consequential report. The Chief Justice of India's recommendation to the President and Prime Minister regarding Justice Verma's removal was also deemed to have legal sanction. The controversy originated from the recovery of cash in Justice Verma's house following a fire. The Supreme Court stated that "the entire procedure regarding the in-house inquiry committee and the consequential report that came out of it, in fact, does have legal sanction, which means that it's not an unconstitutional procedure." This decision means Justice Verma's options are now limited, with the matter expected to proceed to Parliament for impeachment proceedings.

Transcript

00:00Narani, take us to the details of what exactly had the petition also really said

00:04and this clearly has got no bearing on the impeachment proceedings

00:07against Justice Yashmant Verma, isn't it?

00:11Absolutely, both the proceedings are completely parallel and independent of each other

00:15and in fact, even the inquiry committee report that was submitted by the in-house inquiry panel

00:22which was constituted by the former Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjeev Sarna,

00:26even that report is going to have little value before the proceedings in the parliament

00:30but coming to what Justice Yashmant said in his petition

00:33he'd essentially challenged the entire inquiry committee report and the findings of it

00:38on the basis of the fact that the procedure was not properly followed

00:42he'd said that he did not get a right to cross-examine the witnesses who'd appeared before the inquiry committee

00:49he'd also gone ahead and said that the inquiry committee had reversed the burden of proof

00:53which means that they had put the proof on Justice Verma to prove that the cash did not belong to him

00:59and he said that this was unheard of in law and it was not his job to prove that the cash did not belong to him

01:06but at the same time, the Supreme Court has said, the Supreme Court looked into each of these aspects

01:12and it has devised six questions of law that it has answered in its judgment

01:16at the very outset it said that our first question is that whether we should even entertain this petition

01:23considering the fact that we had made an observation that the conduct of the judge did not inspire confidence

01:29and this is something that the Supreme Court has said multiple times during the course of the hearing

01:33that the conduct of Justice Verma, the way he had challenged the inquiry committee report at the last second

01:39along with the fact that he had never even gone to check that particular location where the fire had occurred

01:46after his return from Bhopal back to his residence

01:48all of this conduct did not really inspire confidence

01:52which is why the Supreme Court said that despite this observation

01:55we have still formulated five more questions of law that they have answered during the course of this judgment

02:02which also includes as to whether or not this CGI was authorized or empowered

02:06to write to the PMO and the President and recommend impeachment proceedings be initiated against Justice Verma

02:13because that was one of the grounds that he had challenged

02:15and he said that nowhere does it mention that the CGI has this power to recommend impeachment proceedings

02:22so all of those questions have been answered by the Supreme Court today

02:26of course the petition has been dismissed and we are still waiting for the detailed copy of the judgment

02:30but just to take you through a quick few highlights

02:33the Supreme Court has said that the in-house inquiry procedure was legal

02:36it had legal sanction and it is not a parallel and constitutional procedure

02:41it also goes on to say that both the CGI and the in-house committee

02:45followed the procedure that was laid on

02:48the procedure was followed in all aspects except for one

02:52which was when the video of the cash that was found in the outhouse was released

02:57as the part of the press report that was put out on the Supreme Court website

03:02this remember Seha is something that the Supreme Court had said even earlier

03:05that possibly they should not have released the video at the outset

03:09another thing that the Supreme Court has said

03:11that even on uploading of the footage

03:13the Supreme Court said nothing turns on it

03:16since Justice Verma did not come at the opportune moment

03:19again something that the Supreme Court has said in the past earlier

03:22that he should have approached the court in a judicial petition earlier

03:27if he'd wanted to challenge the in-house procedure

03:29Supreme Court also said that he has not sought relief regarding that in his plea

03:33Supreme Court also said that CGI giving opportunity to Justice Verma for hearing

03:38was not requirement of the procedure

03:40which means that the CGI was not bound to give a hearing to Justice Verma

03:44yet Justice Verma was asked by the CGI

03:47to place both his stand and his opinion on the entire matter

03:52before the inquiry committee was set up

03:53and CGI has also said

03:55that it cannot be claimed as a matter of right

03:58the Supreme Court also said that it cannot be claimed as a matter of right

04:01that the CGI asks for your stand

04:04and on whether the writ was maintainable

04:05the Supreme Court said once again

04:07that his conduct did not inspire confidence

04:12for despite that this judgment has been given

04:14important clarification that has come in at outset

04:17is that nothing that has been said by the Supreme Court

04:21should impact any other proceedings

04:22including the proceedings that are yet to happen

04:25before the Lok Sabha or the Parliament of India

04:27Alright, Nalini Sharma getting in those details

04:30and telling us about Justice Verma's plea

04:32that has today been dismissed by the Supreme Court

04:34remember this has got to do with the Cash Hall case

04:36that was in fact being heard

04:40this had got to do with the petition of Justice Verma

04:44today this has been dismissed by the Supreme Court

04:47the court saying the CGI is giving an opportunity

04:50to Justice Verma for hearing

04:51which was not requirement of the procedure

04:54it cannot be claimed as a matter of right

04:56underscoring that they've done this

04:59they've rejected Justice Verma's plea

05:01but they heard his petition

05:03what about the writ was maintainable

05:05this is something that has been said

05:07by the Supreme Court as well

05:09his conduct did not inspire confidence

05:12and this is something that the court has said today

05:15you know elaborate on this Nalini

05:17the very fact that the court talking about the conduct

05:19not inspiring confidence

05:21this is something that has been stated multiple times

05:26by the Supreme Court during the course of the hearing

05:28essentially talking about not only at what time

05:31he chose to file this petition before the Supreme Court

05:35asking challenging the inquiry committee report

05:37and the process related to it

05:39but also how he had conducted himself

05:43at the time when this entire controversy had happened

05:46for example

05:47after he had come back from Bhopal

05:50because he was not in town when the fire had occurred

05:52after he had come back

05:54he did not visit the location where the fire had occurred

05:58the outhouse

05:58even once to assess the kind of damage that had happened

06:02even the inquiry committee in its report has said

06:04that they found this very odd

06:06because irrespective of how valuable or not valuable

06:09the things in a house are

06:10if there's a fire

06:11it's common for a person to go and check

06:14how much damage it will cost

06:15another thing that the inquiry committee report

06:17had raised regarding his conduct

06:19was the fact that when his transfer

06:21was communicated to him

06:23he immediately had accepted the transfer to Allahabad

06:26without asking for the reasons behind it

06:29and much before the deadline for his acceptance

06:32was set to expire

06:34so just within a few hours of it being communicated to him

06:37without any questions

06:38he accepted the transfer

06:40which was again something very odd

06:42that the inquiry committee found

06:43they said that any sitting judge

06:45if he is suddenly informed of his transfer

06:47he is likely to at least ask

06:49why he is being transferred

06:51another important thing regarding his conduct

06:53that the inquiry committee report had highlighted

06:55was that despite the fact that he claimed

06:58that there was possibly a conspiracy against him

07:01on the basis of which

07:02Nalini I will come back to you in a moment from now

07:04in fact Nalini Kohli is also now joining us

07:06thank you for your time

07:07your take on what has been said

07:09as far as Justice Verma's plea

07:12before the Supreme Court is concerned

07:13it has now been dismissed by the Supreme Court

07:16your reaction to that

07:17that is the correct position

07:19and it was expected

07:21in fact a lot of people were wondering

07:24that why was there a need

07:25to move a petition in this manner

07:27because first

07:28the King Chief Justice of India

07:30Mr. Sanjeev

07:31Justice Sanjeev Khanna

07:33he had

07:34followed to the T

07:36what was the prescribed mechanism

07:38as provided in the Veera Swami judgment

07:40so therefore

07:41when there is a judgment of the Supreme Court

07:43by a large bench

07:44when there is a procedure prescribed

07:47if the Honorable Chief Justice of India

07:49follows that

07:51thereafter an inquiry committee is constituted

07:53which includes two Chief Justices

07:55of the High Court

07:56a senior judge

07:57of the Karnataka High Court

07:59they go into it

08:01Justice Verma

08:02decides not to present himself

08:05they look at the entire evidence

08:07they then look at the video footage

08:08everything

08:09give it there

08:09the recommendation goes

08:10as per procedure

08:11from that perspective

08:13the bench

08:14of the Honorable Supreme Court

08:17Justice Duttar

08:18and others

08:19Justice Duttar specifically

08:20are these queries on the first day

08:23as reported in the media

08:24and then

08:25today what has come

08:26is unexpected life

08:27okay

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended