Plea In Supreme Court Seeks FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma As In-House Inquiry Concludes

Following the Chief Justice of India sending the in-house inquiry report against Justice Yashwant Varma to the President and the Prime Minister over the allegations of discovery of hordes of illicit cash currencies at his oficial premises, a writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the registration of an FIR in the matter.

The petition has been filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three others. In March, Nedumpara had filed a writ petition challenging the in-house inquiry which was being conducted by a panel of three Judges and seeking the initiation of regular criminal investigation. However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain that writ petition, saying that the petition was premature and that one had to await the outcome of the in-house inquiry. The bench had dismissed the writ petition saying "at this stage, it will not be appropriate to entertain this Writ Petition."

Now, the petitioners have approached the Supreme Court again, pointing out that the in-house inquiry has been over and a report has been submitted to the CJI, finding the allegations to be prima facie true. The CJI has forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister.

In these circumstances, a criminal investigation into the matter is necessary, argued the petitioners.

The petitioners argued that the directions in K. Veeraswami judgment that no FIR shall be registered against a judge without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India is contrary to the law of the land and require a relook.

"The case at hand is an open and shut case. It is a case of a holding black money accumulated by selling justice. Even attempting to believe Justice Varma's own version, the question still remains as to why he did not file an FIR. Filing an FIR even belatedly is absolutely necessary to enable the police to enable the police to investigate the conspiracy aspect," the petition stated.

The petitioners argued that the impeachment of the judge is not a sufficient remedy and there should be penal action in terms of the statutes. Removal from the office is only a civil consequence. 

"When it is a judge, the defender of justice who is himself the accused or culprit, then it is no ordinary offense, the gravity is far greater and so must be the punishment. Probity in public life which judge is duty bound to uphold is uncompromisable. It is imperative that criminal law is set into motion, the matter is thoroughly investigated and most importantly ascertain who was bribegiver/beneficiaries and what was the cause/judgment in which justice was purchased," the petitioners stated.

It was on March 22 that CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted the committee, after reports emerged regarding the accidental discovery of a huge stash of cash from a store-room at the out-house of Justice Varma's official residence during a firefighting operation. At the time, Justice Varma was a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. After the controversy, Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court. Judicial work has been withdrawn from Justice Varma as per the instruction of the CJI.