Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Verma, who is facing serious allegations in the cash scandal, took a dig at the Supreme Court. The court asked Verma, who was challenging the formation of the in -house committee investigating the case, why did he not say this earlier? The court said, “You appeared in front. Perhaps he was expecting a conclusion in your favor. When this did not happen, he filed a petition.”
However, a bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta and Augustin George Christ said that he would hear this petition on Wednesday, 30 July. The judges asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal to appear for Justice Verma to give his arguments in a brief point. The court has also asked many questions.
Supreme Court questions:-
- If you are challenging the report of the investigation committee, why not file it with your petition?
- If you consider the formation of the committee illegal, why did you appear before the Tea Committee?
- You say that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court cannot conduct an inquiry, so what should they do if the judge gets information about the misconduct?
- The President is the constitutional head, he appoints judges. Why are you opposing sending the committee report to the President?
- Now that the process of removing you from the post has started in Parliament, what order can the Supreme Court give?
The court also raised questions on the fact that in the petition of Justice Verma, only the Central Government has written on the first number as a defendant. After this, the Supreme Court of India is written at the second and third number. It does not write the post of any officer or the name of any department. Justice Dutta said that the petition has been made carelessly. On this, Kapil Sibal said that he will revise the list of parties.
During the hearing, Kapil Sibal cited Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution. He said that the process of removing the judge is that the proposal should be brought to any House of Parliament. The Chairman of the House forms a committee to investigate the allegations. The law is not in the law to form a committee on behalf of the Chief Justice of India.
Sibal also said that there is no discussion of allegations in the House before the report of the committee created by Parliament. But in the case of Justice Verma, the Supreme Court made the video public. All internal correspondence was also made public. Everyone started discussing it. Started to pronounce the verdict. This should not have happened.
What is the matter?
This year, on March 14, Justice Yashwant Verma’s Delhi’s house was on fire. At that time he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. After extinguishing the fire, the police and firefighters saw a large amount of burnt cash there. The then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Sanjeev Khanna formed a 3 -judge committee to investigate the case on 22 March. It included Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of Punjab-Haryana High Court, Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court GS Sandhavalia and Karnataka High Court Judge Anu Shivraman.
The investigation committee submitted its report to the then Chief Justice on 4 May. In this report, Justice Yashwant Verma was held guilty of misconduct. On 8 May, the Chief Justice sent the report to the President and the Prime Minister for further action. Justice Yashwant Verma Bay has filed a petition in protest against this report and recommendation.