New Delhi: Rejecting Justice Yashwant Verma’s plea, on Thursday, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and AG Masih said that “it was also unfair to think that despite the current nature incident, the CJI would wait for Parliament to take action”.“CJI, when informed about the memory of a judge, the right to take such necessary action – is warrant to maintain moral, moral and legal – institutional integrity. To maintain institutional integrity.The SC tried not to give a personal hearing before Justice Verma did not give a personal hearing before the process of investigation and the CJI recommended to make a mistake to make a mistake. It said, “The CJI has followed the in-house process, which does not envisage the hearing to be given to the judge after expressing his inability to resign or voluntarily retire.”The 57-Page’s decision, which rescues the original advocate of logic Kapil Sibal, as a surgery, as a surgery, on March 14, after discovering sacks of sacks of burning sacks at his official residence in Lutyens’ on March 14, the judge created to mold the complicated behavior and said his participation in the investigation without protest, said that “Justice Dutt said,” Justice Varma said, “Justice Varma.The bench made a mistake to not raise objections in time, either recommended uploading videos of burning cash on the SC website, the process of investigation, the conclusions of the committee and the removal of the committee, and questioned the courage of the judge to suspect legal approval behind the in-house process.Justice Verma’s only consolation bench’s comment was that since the entire investigation process is essentially confidential, the CJI could avoid being very fair and transparent and the burning cash video was not uploaded, as it was not required under the in-house process. At the same time, Justice Dutta said that the judge did not oppose uploading the video on relevant time.Justice Dutta said that even though the CJI has not made any recommendation to remove Justice Verma, “the power of the parliament to initiate proceedings to remove a judge for alleged abuse or disability remains unfit”. This can also be started when the committee does not find the judge guilty, it said.“The jurisdiction of power, capacity, rights and Parliament has been left uncontrolled by the in-house process to decide what is in the best interests of the nation; Therefore, it is bad to argue that the in-house process is a parallel and additional-constitutional machinery to remove a judge,” said Justice Datta and Masih.The bench said that it would be quixotic to argue that in-house inquiry is a removal mechanism. This is only to help CJI take a prima facial view about the alleged misconduct of the judge and decide whether the government is recommended to start a proposal to remove in Parliament.Rejecting the aspirations on CJI’s works after the investigation report, the bench said, “We have no hesitation in saying that the CJI is not the only post office between the inquiry committee and the chairman/PM that the report is to be forwarded without any comment/recommendation. CJI is clearly an important person, if the institutional interest and credibility are clearly an important person, if there is a big plan to maintain institution To be maintained.,
