The Supreme Court asked him sharp questions on Wednesday (July 29, 2025) on Wednesday (July 29, 2025), not credible by the Supreme Court, describing the in-house committee report as invalid. During the hearing, the Supreme Court reacted sharply to the arguments given by Justice Yashwant Verma.
The petition also opposed the sending recommendation to the President on behalf of former Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna for the removal of Justice Yashwant Verma from the post, on which the Supreme Court looked very strict. The court said that the office of the Chief Justice is not a post office. He wrote his recommendation after seeing the report. Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Augustin George Christ were hearing the bench case.
According to the report of the bar and bench, on behalf of Justice Yashwant Verma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal opposed making the video of the burnt cash being made public at the petitioner’s house. He said that the atmosphere was already made against him. This was done by the Chief Justice of India itself. He not only did this, after the report of the committee, he also sent the recommendation to the President to remove the judge from the post.
On this argument of Kapil Sibal, the court considered the plea to consider against making the video public, but said that there is no meaning in this matter now. The petitioner should have said this earlier. The bench justified the recommendation of the Chief Justice and said, ‘The office of the Chief Justice is not a post office. The person sitting there has some responsibility towards the country. He wrote his recommendation after looking at the report. His accountability is also made towards the people of the country.
The bench said that if there are any documents in front of the CJI of India that a judge has committed misconduct, he can inform the President and the Prime Minister. The Supreme Court also asked Justice Yashwant Verma why he appeared before the in-house committee and did not challenge him there. Now when he prepared the report, you are objecting. The court told Justice Verma that he should have come first against the committee’s report. The court reserved the verdict after hearing all the arguments.
(tagstotranslate)
Source link
