At House panel meet, questions on why no FIR after cash seizure at judge’s residence

Cash was found at the residence of Justice Varma in Delhi when a fire broke out there on March 14. Justice Varma was indicted by the in-house inquiry on May 8. The government has initiated the process for bringing an impeachment motion against Justice Varma during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament.

It is learnt that a member also suggested that the 1991 judgment in ‘K Veeraswami vs Union of India’ case should be relooked and if judges are involved in wrongdoings, they should face an FIR. The Department of Justice Secretary is learnt to have told the panel members that he will get back regarding the demand for an FIR against Justice Varma.

The issue of Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court against whom Rajya Sabha members have moved an impeachment notice also came up. One member wanted to know what action had been taken against Justice Yadav by the CJI.

In December last year, Justice Yadav, a sitting judge of Allahabad High Court, had made questionable remarks on Muslim marriage practices and backed the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) while speaking at a VHP event. An impeachment notice was submitted by 54 Rajya Sabha MPs against Justice Yadav.

At Tuesday’s meeting of the committee chaired by BJP MP Brij Lal, another member was said to have suggested that judges should have a cooling off period of five years after retirement during which they shouldn’t be allowed to take up any kind of job or work, or political assignments or contest elections.

Another member also suggested an increase in the retirement age of judges and that they should get a better salary and pension.

The agenda of Tuesday’s meeting was to discuss the code of conduct for judges of higher judiciary.