New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on the challenge of an in-house inquiry panel of Justice Yashwant Verma, in which he was found guilty in terms of cash search.PTI said that the bench, which included Justice Dipankar Dutta and AG Masih, said that the Chief Justice of India has the right to inform the President and the Prime Minister that if the evidence suggests judicial misconduct, PTI said. The recommendation demanded the removal of the judge after a report by an in-house inquiry committee, which implicated him in relation to cash discoveries at his official residence.The court questioned Justice Verma’s decision to participate in the in-house Inquiry Committee’s proceedings and said without competing at that level and said that “your conduct does not inspire trust, why did you appear before the committee.”The apex court said that Justice Verma should have contacted them soon to fight the In-House Inquiry panel findings.The bench said, “Whether or not to move forward is a political decision. But the judiciary has to send a message to the society that the process has been followed.”Justice Verma’s lawyer, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the panel’s suggestion to remove his customer violated constitutional principles.Sibal emphasized the court that the establishment of such an example would be problematic for the removal proceedings.Action is going on.The Supreme Court has given Advocate Mathews to request an FIR registration against Justice Verma. Criticized the Nedampara.Justice Dipankar Dutta questioned the Nedampara whether he had filed a formal police complaint before requesting an FIR registration.The court reserved the decision on a separate petition of the Nedampar, requesting an FIR registration.Justice Verma has challenged the recommendation of May 8 of the then Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna, who requested Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings. In his presentation, Justice Verma argued that the investigation improperly shifted the burden of evidence, requiring him to investigate and denote the allegations against him.Justice Verma claimed that the panel findings were predetermined, stating that the investigation timeline was quickly compromised with procedural fairness to end the proceedings.The petition argued that the inquiry panel came to an adverse conclusion without providing adequate opportunities for defense.
