Plea In Supreme Court Seeks FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma; Challenges In-House Probe By Committee Constituted By CJI

In relation to the Justice Yashwant Varma Cash Row incident, a PIL has been filed seeking to register an FIR against Justice Varma and challenging the three-member committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India to investigate the matter. 

The plea, filed by Supreme Court Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, has challenged the direction of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, where it was held that a criminal case under S. 154 CrPC against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge can only be filed after consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The petitioner states that while a majority of the judges act with integrity, instances like the present one cannot be skipped from the prescribed criminal procedure. The plea states: 

"The Petitioners, in all humility, believe that the consequence of the aforesaid direction, that no FIR shall be filed, was certainly not present in the minds of the Hon'ble judges. The said direction creates a special class of privileged men/women, immune from the penal laws of the land. Our judges, except for a minority, and not a microscopic one, are men and women of the greatest of erudition, integrity, learning and independence. Judges do not commit crimes. But incidents where judges are caught red handed accepting money as in the case of Justice Nirmal Yadav or in the recent case of Justice Yashwant Varma, so too, being involved POCSO and other cases, cannot be denied.The judgement in K. Veeraswami's case, to the knowledge of the Petitioners has stood in the way of an FIR being registered even in an offence involving POCSO."

Questioning the non-registration of FIR in Justice Varma's instance, the plea states the dwindling trust of the public was restored when the Supreme Court made the fire-dousing video and Delhi High Court's Chief Justice Report available for public access on its website. 

"In Justice Yashwant Varma's case no FIR has been filed to the knowledge of the Petitioners. The public perception is that very effort will be made to cover up the issue, to the extent even the initial statements regarding recovery of money is now being refuted.However, the Supreme Court uploading on its website the report of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi along with the explanation from Justice Varma and the video of the fire force dousing huge volumes of currency notes, has to some extend helped public trust to be restored." 

"However, the common man and media channels, not lawyers and judges who comment on public platforms, keep asking the same question, why no FIR was registered on 14th March, on the day of the occurrence. Why no arrests were made, why the money was not seized, why no mahazarprepared, why the criminal law was not put into motion. Why it took over almost a week for the public to know about the scandal." 

The plea further states that directing a 3 member committee to conduct in-house inquiry instead of following the criminal procedure by way of FIR was a 'great disservice to the public interest'. 

"The collegium in appointing a committee of judges to conduct an in-house inquiry, instead of directing that an FIR shall be lodged, has done a great disservice to public interest, the fair name and the reputation of the Supreme Court and the institution of judiciary and even Justice Varma if one were to believe his version, which is ex facie absurd." 

The petitioner primarily contends that such the reasoning in K Veeraswami Case is opposed to the statutory duty of the police as laid down under the criminal legislation to lodge an FIR in the event of any information of an alleged cognizable offence. The relevant portion reads : 

"Even the King is not considered above law, but under God and the law. However, a 5-judge constitution bench of this Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, 1991 SCR (3) 189, was pleased to direct that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 of the CrPC against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of a High Court or judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter."

"The said observation of the Court is one rendered per incuriam, in ignorance of law and sub silentio, without noticing that the police is under a statutory duty to register an FIR when it receives information of a cognizable offence, and the said direction of the Court is nothing short of restraining the police from discharging their statutory duty. While the judiciary is sovereign in its field, namely, the adjudication of disputes, when it comes to the investigation of crimes and bringing of culprits to book, the police is sovereign. So long as the police acts bona fide and in accordance with law, no interference is permissible. As the Privy Council as held, so long as the police acts fairly and within jurisdiction, nobody, not even the Court, can interfere." 

The following prayers are sought by the petitioner : 

 a) Declare that the incident of recovery of huge sums of unaccounted money from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, by the fire force/police when their services for sought to douse fire, constitute a cognisable offence punishable under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that the police is duty bound to register an FIR;

(b) Declare that the observations in paragraph 60 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. UOI prohibiting that no criminal case shall be registered against a judge of a High court or Supreme Court without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India is one rendered per incuriam and sub silentio; 

 c) Dclare that the 3-member Committee constituted by the collegium has no jurisdiction to investigate the incident and that the resolution of the collegium investing the Committee the power to conduct such an investigation is one rendered void ab initio inasmuch as the collegium cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself to order so where the Parliament or the Constitution has conferred none; 

d) Direct Delhi Police to register an FIR and cause an effective and meaningful investigation;

e) Restrain any person or authority, even authorities as contemplated in K. Veeraswami's case, from interfering with the sovereign policing function of the state, nay, in registering an FIR and investigating the crime;

f) Direct the Government to take effective and meaningful action for curbing corruption across all levels of judiciary, including the enactment of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, which had lapsed;

Background 

Case Details: SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS v. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS.