New Delhi [India], March 28: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the registration of an FIR regarding the alleged recovery of a stash of cash from the official residence of Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that the petition is premature, as an in-house inquiry is already underway. The court clarified that after the inquiry report is submitted, several options would be available, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI) directing the registration of an FIR or referring the matter to Parliament.
In-House Inquiry Underway
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had last week constituted a three-member inquiry committee consisting of:
- Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
- Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the Karnataka High Court
As the committee is already probing the incident, the Supreme Court refused to intervene at this stage.
Bench’s Observations
In its order, the court stated:
“After the in-house inquiry is over, several options are open. The CJI can direct the registration of an FIR or refer the matter to Parliament after examining the report. Today, it is not the time to consider this petition.”
During the hearing, advocate Mathews Nedumpara, the petitioner, questioned why no FIR had been registered or arrests made in the case. The bench, however, maintained that judicial procedures must be followed and declined to interfere before the in-house inquiry concludes.
Controversy Surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma
The controversy began after media reports suggested that a fire accident at Justice Varma’s residence on March 14 led to the discovery of cash by firefighters. The judge was not present at the time.
The Supreme Court released a preliminary inquiry report by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice, which stated that the matter warrants a deeper probe. Meanwhile, Justice Varma has denied all allegations, calling them a “conspiracy to frame and malign” him.
Additionally, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended transferring Justice Varma back to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court.
Petition’s Demands
The PIL also challenged the Supreme Court’s ruling in K Veeraswami vs Union of India, which mandates prior consultation with the CJI before filing a criminal case against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge. The petitioner sought:
- A declaration that the alleged cash recovery is a cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, warranting a police probe.
- Enactment of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 to strengthen measures against judicial corruption.