SC dismisses plea for FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma in cash discovery row

THe sublime margaret court on wed refused to try a petition seeking a number one information report (FIR) against sitting high court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the discovery of cash from this official residence in the capital. The court observed that since the matter has been referred by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to the President and Prime Minister, the petitioners should have moved a representation calling upon the authorities to take action before seeking intervention from the court. Dismissing the petition filed by a group of lawyers led by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, a bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka said, “Before seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioner will have to seek redressal of their grievances by filing representation before the appropriate authority. Therefore, we decline to entertain the writ petition.” The court cited a press note of May 8 issued by the Supreme Court stating that the in-house enquiry committee’s report along with the response filed by justice Varma to the same has been forwarded by the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister as per the In-House Procedure to be followed when allegations of misconduct are raised against sitting judges. The CJI had recommended initiation of process for removal of the judge after reports suggested that the three-member judicial enquiry panel found the allegation of cash at home to be true. Also Read: Justice Varma’s defence in plea rests on proof of money stash Nedumpara, who argued the matter in person pointed out that the recovery of huge amounts of cash, partly that was found in burnt condition from the judge’s residence, is a cognizable offence that mandates registration of FIR. He said that the recovery of the said amount assumes there is a bribe giver and a bribe taker and law must take its own course. However, he pointed out that a 1991 judgment in Veeraswami case prohibits registration of a first information report (FIR) without the permission of the CJI. The bench, also comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan told the petitioner, “Before filing the writ petition, you must follow the basic rule. The May 8 press note records that the in-house enquiry report and the response of the judge has been forwarded to President of India and Prime Minister. We do not know the contents of that report. You file a representation to the authorities calling upon them to take action.” The petition called for immediate initiation of criminal proceedings, saying the in-house committee found the allegations against the judge prima facie true.Nedumpara sought review of the 1991 judgment as according to him, the judgment of the court was coming in the way of the criminal law getting operational. The court said, “At this stage, it is not necessary to look into the other prayers (in the petition).” The court told Nedumpara, “There is a law laid down by this court (on the In-House Procedure) and the CJI has followed it. According to this procedure, the report has been forwarded to the President and PM... You have to go to the authorities before coming to this court.” The panel had submitted its report on May 4 to then CJI pursuant to which justice Varma’s response was sought. Subsequently, as justice Varma refused to step down, CJI recommended for his removal to the President and Prime Minister. “What has happened is a grave crime against public justice. 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,” the petition said. Not happy with the action of CJI to recommend for removal of the judge, the petition said, “...if Justice It was on March 14, a fire took place at the residence of justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi high court, following which police and fire service officials reached the spot. While dousing the fire, they found currency notes stacked in a sack. Without seizing the money, they took video and photos of the cash that was shared with the Delhi police commissioner, who in turn informed chief justice of the Delhi high court. The CJI was later informed and based on an inquiry by Delhi HC chief justice, deeper probe was recommended citing inconsistencies in the evidence gathered by police and statement by justice Varma. On March 22, the three-member inquiry panel was formed, and, in the meantime, justice Varma was transferred to his parent high court at Allahabad. Going by the report of the inquiry panel, the petitioners said, “It was indisputable that the huge volumes of money that was burned and partly burned and clandestinely removed was nothing but bribe/corruption” When unexplained cash is recovered, it amounts to an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, the petition said, adding that unless criminal law is not set into motion, the evidence will stand destroyed. A 5-judge constitution bench in K. Veeraswami case (1991) held that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judge of the high court, Chief Justice of a high court or a judge of the Supreme Court, unless the CJI is consulted on the matter.