Why has the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha not moved on an impeachment motion signed by 55 members of Parliament (in the case of Justice Yadav) for six months? Does it take that long to verify signatures, especially when the case against Justice Yadav is open-and-shut?”: Sibal
NEW DELHI: Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday alleged that the real motive behind the government's move to bring an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma for alleged corruption is to take control of the appointment of judges by doing away with the collegium system and bringing in the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
Mr Sibal, an independent Rajya Sabha MP and a former Congress leader who has been part of two impeachment processes against senior judges in 1993 and 2018, said there were no established facts, other than the videos showing burnt cash in the outhouse of the Delhi residence allotted to Justice Varma.
The former Union law minister urged the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to constitute an SIT and order an FIR to investigate the issue. He stressed finding out whose cash it was and from where it came.
Addressing a press conference, Mr Sibal accused the government of targeting Justice Varma and protecting Allahabad high court Justice Shekhar Yadav. He said: “Why has the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha not moved on an impeachment motion signed by 55 members of Parliament (in the case of Justice Yadav) for six months? Does it take that long to verify signatures, especially when the case against Justice Yadav is open-and-shut?”
When asked about the Supreme Court's in-house committee, which consisted of two chief justices and a judge, for the inquiry into the allegations against Justice Varma, Mr Sibal said, “They looked into what? They never looked into why the Delhi police didn’t do what they were supposed to do? The committee said that is not part of their remit… They didn’t look into how members of the fire services department conducted themselves… I have great regard for each of (the judges), but if they were asked to hold an inquiry, they should have looked into issues which were obvious.”
Mr Sibal further added: “Without a full-fledged inquiry, they concluded that cash was allegedly found as reflected in the taped videos, and the judge could not explain who the cash belonged to and who put it there. Therefore, the cash found must have been placed there with his tacit or explicit knowledge. They do not conclude that the cash belonged to the judge… In the absence of any investigation, how do you make somebody culpable for something that he says he is not aware of?"
