NEW DELHI: Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Tuesday announced the formation of a three-member committee to investigate allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the “cash-at-home” controversy.
The panel will include senior advocate PV Acharya of the Karnataka high court as the jurist member. SC judge Aravind Kumar, Madras HC Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava are the other members of the committee.
Also read: SC rejects Justice Yashwant Varma's plea; judge had challenged in-house inquiry
"The members of the Committee include Justice Arvind Kumar, Supreme Court Judge, Justice Maninder Mohan Srivastava, Chief Justice Madras High Court, and BV Acharya, Senior Advocate, Karnataka High Court. The committee will submit its report as early as possible. The proposal will remain pending till the receipt of the report of the inquiry committee," Birla said.
Birla accepted a motion signed by 146 MPs seeking the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma.
“The committee will submit its report as early as possible. The proposal (for removal of Justice Varma) will remain pending till the receipt of the report of the inquiry committee,” Birla said, according to PTI.
The House also resolved that an address be presented to the President for the removal of Yashwant Varma from office for his misconduct.
What happened during August 7 hearing
On August 7, SC dismissed Justice Varma’s plea challenging the in-house inquiry report that found him guilty of misconduct. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih held that “the in-house procedure was scrupulously followed” and rejected senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s argument that it was a “parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism”.
The Court noted Justice Varma had raised no objections during the process and found “no whisper” of procedural illegality in his representation to then CJI Sanjiv Khanna. It upheld the May 8 recommendation to initiate impeachment, stating: “The procedure… has its roots in the law declared by this court under Article 141 of the Constitution.”
The bench framed and answered six legal questions, including whether the inquiry violated fundamental rights. It concluded that neither the report nor the recommendation to the President and Prime Minister was unconstitutional.
The judgment said the CJI has a duty to protect the integrity of the judiciary and cannot act merely as a “post office”. Justice Varma was allowed to raise his defence during any impeachment proceedings that may follow in Parliament.
Wads of burnt cash were found following a fire in the storeroom of the judge's official residence in the capital on March 14.
The panel will include senior advocate PV Acharya of the Karnataka high court as the jurist member. SC judge Aravind Kumar, Madras HC Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava are the other members of the committee.
Also read: SC rejects Justice Yashwant Varma's plea; judge had challenged in-house inquiry
"The members of the Committee include Justice Arvind Kumar, Supreme Court Judge, Justice Maninder Mohan Srivastava, Chief Justice Madras High Court, and BV Acharya, Senior Advocate, Karnataka High Court. The committee will submit its report as early as possible. The proposal will remain pending till the receipt of the report of the inquiry committee," Birla said.
Birla accepted a motion signed by 146 MPs seeking the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma.
“The committee will submit its report as early as possible. The proposal (for removal of Justice Varma) will remain pending till the receipt of the report of the inquiry committee,” Birla said, according to PTI.
The House also resolved that an address be presented to the President for the removal of Yashwant Varma from office for his misconduct.
What happened during August 7 hearing
On August 7, SC dismissed Justice Varma’s plea challenging the in-house inquiry report that found him guilty of misconduct. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih held that “the in-house procedure was scrupulously followed” and rejected senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s argument that it was a “parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism”.
The Court noted Justice Varma had raised no objections during the process and found “no whisper” of procedural illegality in his representation to then CJI Sanjiv Khanna. It upheld the May 8 recommendation to initiate impeachment, stating: “The procedure… has its roots in the law declared by this court under Article 141 of the Constitution.”
The bench framed and answered six legal questions, including whether the inquiry violated fundamental rights. It concluded that neither the report nor the recommendation to the President and Prime Minister was unconstitutional.
The judgment said the CJI has a duty to protect the integrity of the judiciary and cannot act merely as a “post office”. Justice Varma was allowed to raise his defence during any impeachment proceedings that may follow in Parliament.
Wads of burnt cash were found following a fire in the storeroom of the judge's official residence in the capital on March 14.
You may also like
Fantasy Preview: SOB vs NOS, The Hundred 2025 – Dream11 Picks, Playing XI Pitch Report
Health Tips- Cardamom tea is harmful for the health of these people; know who they are
"Why Doesn't ECI Submit Affidavits To The Opposition?": Political Analyst Tehseen Poonawalla Demands Action From ECI On Alleged Voter Duplications
Saiyaara to stream on Netflix soon: Date and details inside
Iran says it arrested 21,000 'suspects' during 12-day war with Israel
