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
Comments