New Delhi: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma, a Judge of the Delhi High Court, over the alleged discovery of illicit cash at his official residence recently.
The petition was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on Wednesday for urgent hearing.
Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, the main petitioner, mentioned the matter before the CJI.
At the outset, the Chief Justice remarked, “Your matter has been listed… don’t make any public statements.”
Nedumpara responded, emphasizing the necessity of registering an FIR against the judge, further commending the CJI for making relevant records public, including the video of burnt currency notes.
In response, the CJI advised the petitioner to check with the registry for the hearing date. Another co-petitioner, present with Nedumpara, remarked, “Had this amount been found at a businessman’s house, agencies like the ED and IT would have taken immediate action.” The bench refused to entertain further discussion, assuring that the matter would be listed in due course.
The petition challenges the decision of the CJI to initiate an in-house probe by a three-judge panel instead of ordering a regular criminal investigation. It also questions the precedent set in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which mandates consulting the CJI before filing an FIR against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge.
The plea argues that while most judges uphold integrity, instances like the present case should not bypass criminal procedures.
It states “The direction that no FIR shall be filed was certainly not within the intended scope of the Hon’ble judges. Such a direction creates an exclusive class immune from the penal laws of the land. While the judiciary largely comprises erudite and honest individuals, incidents involving corruption, as seen in cases like Justice Nirmal Yadav and now Justice Yashwant Varma, must be scrutinized under established criminal laws.”
The petition contends that the Supreme Court collegium’s decision to form a three-member committee to conduct an in-house inquiry instead of directing police to register an FIR is against public interest. It asserts “The collegium, by appointing a committee of judges rather than ordering an FIR, has done a disservice to the reputation of the judiciary. This decision does not serve public interest and undermines the rule of law.”
The plea further argues that the reasoning in the K. Veeraswami case contradicts the statutory duty of the police to lodge an FIR when informed of a cognizable offence. It cites “Even the King is not above the law. However, in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991 SCR (3) 189), the Supreme Court ruled that no criminal case shall be registered against a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court without consulting the CJI. This observation is per incuriam, as it restrains the police from discharging their statutory duty.”
The petitioner has sought a declaration that the recovery of large sums of unaccounted cash at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence constitutes a cognizable offence requiring FIR registration.
The petitioner also sought as declaration that the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Veeraswami v. UOI is per incuriam and does not override statutory police duties and the three-member committee has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and that the collegium’s decision to authorize such an investigation is void ab initio.
The petitioner further sought a directive to the Delhi Police to register an FIR and conduct an independent investigation and a restraining order preventing any authority from interfering with the statutory policing function in this matter.
A directive to the government to implement stronger measures against judicial corruption, including the enactment of the lapsed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 is also sought by the petitioner.
The Apex Court is expected to list the matter soon for a detailed hearing.
UNI
