New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on the plea of Justice Yashwant Verma, challenging the report of an in-house inquiry committee, which is to remove his alleged complexity in the case about the discovery of cash sacks from its official residence and his alleged complication about the recommendation of the then CJI Sanjeev Khanna in the case.Rejecting his plea for a week’s adjournment at the beginning of the hearing, a bench of Justice Dipankar Dutt and Augustine Ji Maasih appeared to show the judge and his lawyer, Kapil Sibal, ‘Writing on the wall’, which “does not believe your behavior”, which has more and more hearing.When Sibal stated that the principles of natural justice were sacrificed on the altar of the investigation process and the Allahabad High Court judge was convicted through media tests, as a video of a burning video was uploaded on the SC website, if the burning video was uploaded, it would be scott-free “.The bench told Verma, “You are a judge, and you know your matter. We don’t want to do anything right now. Let the Parliament decide.”CJI has a duty to the nation: SC on Verma case On the challenge of constitutionalism of CJI recommended to snatch Judge’s Justice Yashwant Verma, the bench said, “CJI is not a post office.Sibal said that the recommendation to remove the judge of the in-house committee when the panel did not convince him of having cash owners, resulting in the speed of removing the government and otherwise purely involved in the politicization of the constitutional process.The bench disagreed and further stated that Section 3 (2) of the Judges Protection Act, 1985 empowered the SC and HCS to decide to deal with judges, as the situation was the process of identifying black sheep between judges through a preliminary investigation, which was non-positive.A bench headed by Justice Dutta turned to the conduct of justice Varma and asked, “Why did the judge not extend violation of the principles of natural justice after submitting his report? Why did you not contact SC to remove the video from your website, if it affects a media test and affects your innocence? You could have raised these issues long before. But you were waiting for the result of in-house inquiry. Once it turned out to be unfavorable, you decided to challenge it. , Sibal said that the composition of the inquiry committee would include SC Judge, an HC Chief Justice and a jurist. “With recommending the removal of CJI, will the committee be able to go beyond the recommendation of CJI?” He asked.The bench said, “The CJI has worked according to the in-house process, which has been retained in three SC decisions, and the land is a law. We have to send a message to the society that the in-house process has been followed by the CJI.”
