The Supreme Court questioned Justice Yashwant Varma's conduct regarding an in-house inquiry panel report that found him guilty of misconduct in a cash discovery row. The court raised concerns about his delayed challenge to the inquiry and the implications of the panel's recommendations.
The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Friday seeking a direction to Delhi Police to lodge an FIR over the alleged discovery of semi-burnt stash of cash from the official residence of High Court judge Yashwant Varma. The plea was filed by lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara and three others on Sunday. It challenges the 1991 judgement in the K Veeraswami case, in which the top court ruled that no criminal proceedings could be initiated against a judge of the high court or the top court without the prior nod of the Chief Justice of India. The alleged cash discovery happened following a fire at Varma's Lutyens Delhi residence on March 14, prompting the fire officers to rush to the spot. A Supreme Court-appointed in-house committee visited the residence of Justice Varma on Tuesday to commence its inquiry in the matter. Justice Varma denounced any insinuation and said no cash was ever placed in the storeroom either by him or any of his family members.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the registration of an FIR over the alleged discovery of burnt wads of cash at the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma. The court said an in-house inquiry was underway and there would be several options open to the Chief Justice of India after the probe's conclusion.
The Supreme Court of India expressed its disapproval of "scurrilous and unfounded allegations" made against judges in a petition challenging the conferment of senior designations to lawyers. The court found the plea's averments, which insinuated that judges favor their relatives in bestowing senior advocate titles, to be unacceptable. The bench offered the petitioners four weeks to amend the petition, warning that it may take further action if the offensive allegations are not removed.
A plea in the Supreme Court of India seeks a direction to Delhi Police to lodge an FIR over the alleged discovery of semi-burnt stash of cash from the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma. The plea challenges a 1991 judgement that prohibits criminal proceedings against judges without prior consent from the Chief Justice of India, arguing it violates the principle of equality before the law. It also seeks to declare the collegium's 3-member committee investigating the incident as having no jurisdiction and calls for action against corruption within the judiciary.
The Supreme Court of India expressed shock and disappointment at the Indian government's failure to implement the Dam Safety Act, enacted in 2021. The court highlighted the lack of progress in constituting a national committee for dam safety and formulating regulations despite the law's provisions. The case pertains to the safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam, a 130-year-old structure in Kerala, which is controlled by Tamil Nadu. The court has ordered the government to take immediate action and seek assistance from the Attorney General in this matter.
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Friday said that as a judge, he is a 'servant' of the law and the Constitution and has to follow the position that has been laid down.
The review pleas filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others contended that the matter related to the scheme falls in the exclusive domain of legislative and executive policy.
An exasperated Justice Chandrachud asserted he will not allow any lawyer to "dictate" the procedure of the court.
The Supreme Court said on Monday it will have to constitute a bench to hear a plea against the collegium system of appointment of judges to the apex court and high courts.
The bench said it cannot accede to the prayer made in the petition, which amounts to giving equal rights in succession irrespective of the religion.
The top court, however, refused to stay the counselling of successful candidates for admissions to Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, Bachelor of Dental Surgery and other courses.
The Supreme Court on Monday took exception to making the Chief Justice of India one of the party respondents in a plea challenging the designation of lawyers as senior advocates.
The team comprises officials of Kolkata police, including a director general of police rank officer, Chennai police sources said, adding the whereabouts of Justice Karnan were not known.
When the Chief Justice of India asked about the whereabouts of Justice Karnan, the advocate said he was 'very much in Chennai'.
Mathews J Nedumpara, counsel for the former judge, said Justice Karnan has been in jail without a detailed judgment and moreover, one of the seven judges of the bench, which had convicted him, has already retired.
She was hit on her head by her mother-in-law. She is reportedly stable and has been referred for further tests in the hospital.
The bench directed however that keeping in view the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown conditions, the sentence shall come into force after 16 weeks when the three should surrender before the secretary general of the apex court to undergo the imprisonment.
Earlier the court had noted that there were 19 review petitions pending in the matter.
A five-judge constitution bench by a ratio of 4:1 had held that women of all age groups should be allowed entry inside Kerala's Sabarimala Temple.
The bench said the review petition can only be taken up after the Dussehra vacation.
Calcutta high court judge C S Karnan, evading arrest since May 9, on Wednesday failed to get relief from the Supreme Court, which refused to hear his plea seeking a stay on its order awarding him a six-month jail term for contempt of court.
The apex court had on Tuesday agreed to hear on January 22 in open court the pleas seeking review of its verdict but refused to stay its judgment.
The petition was held as "not maintainable" by the apex court registry.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices L N Rao and Dinesh Maheshwari said it was only going into the aspect of security of the two women and would not like to entertain any other prayer made in the petition.
The Lord Ayyappa shrine will re-open for the two-month-long Madala-Makkarvilakku puja on Saturday.
The apex court said it was duty-bound by the seven-judge bench's order in the case and 'cannot override it'.
The 61-year-old has proved to be as elusive as he has been brash, defying the Supreme Court and passing his own judgments against his peers.
'It is a very vital issue and we cannot keep it pending. We intend to pass an order as to who will hear the matter.'
© 2026 Rediff.com - Investor Information - Advertise with us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy - Sitemap - Feedback - About us - Terms of use - Grievances