Breaking| "It's Premature": Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a Writ Petition challenging the immunity granted to judges from immediate criminal prosecution, citing the recent controversy involving Justice Yashwant Varma and seeking an FIR against him.

The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that an in-house inquiry was already underway and that all legal options, including the possibility of FIR registration, would remain open based on its findings.

At the outset, Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, appearing in person, pointed out the prayers sought in the petition.

To this, Justice Oka said, "Mr. Nedumpara, we have seen your prayers. After the in-house inquiry is over, several options are open. If the report indicates that something is wrong, if required, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India can direct registration of FIR, he can refer the matter to the Parliament. Today is not the day we can go into this question, because the internal inquiry is going on. Today is not a time to consider this. After report, all options are open."

"Please understand one thing: today we are saying it is premature because an internal inquiry is going on," Justice Oka remarked.

Nedumpara, referred to a case of Kerala High Court, wherein, POCSO case was alleged against a sitting judge of the Court. He submitted that the police had registered an FIR against the Judge and the investigation came to an end. "I am not saying that the Judge is wrong; it just an allegation. But when such an allegation is there, it can only be investigated by the police. The investigation is not the job of the Court. Your Lordships are the experts in the domain of adjudication," Nedumpara submitted.

Justice Oka asked Nedumpara to read both the judgments which lay down the procedure of in-house inquiry. "After an in-house inquiry, the report is submitted. Thereafter, all options are open," he said.

Nedumpara, from a common man's perspective, questioned why no FIR had been registered since March 14, the date of the alleged cash recovery. He also raised concerns about the non-seizure of the money and conflicting statements made by the fire department.

"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 mahazar was prepared, why the criminal law was not put into motion. Why it took over almost a week for the public to know about the scandal? Why did the Supreme Court and its collegium did not tell the public at large that such a shocking incident had happened and that it is in possession of the videos and records sent to it by the Ministry of Home and other agencies? So also, why did the Chief of the fire force go on to deny that no cash was recovered and thereafter contradict it?" Nedumpara read from the petition.

"We have seen your petition today, the questions that you have raised, the internal inquiry mechanism are in place. What we are saying is, today we are not saying you are right or wrong. We are saying, today is not a day to interfere at this stage. Let the process be over, then all the options are open for the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India," Justice Oka said.

Nedumpara pointed out that the problem is that only lawyers will understand this, and the common people won't.

Justice Oka responded that there were established judicial precedents governing such cases, stating, "If you represent the common man, somebody has to educate the common man also so that they will understand why the system has been created and what are the options available after the internal inquiry report is submitted. Since you appear for the common man, you should also take the responsibility to educate the common man."

Nedumpara further argued that the Veeraswami judgment, which outlines the procedure for investigating sitting judges, was inconsistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and should not override statutory provisions.

Rejecting these arguments, the Court observed that there were already mechanisms in place to address such grievances and that the petition did not warrant interference at this stage.

The Bench ordered, "Heard the 1st petitioner appearing in person. As far as the grievance regarding the 3rd respondent (Justice Yashwant Verma) is concerned, as far as what can be seen from the website of the Supreme Court, in-house procedure is going on. After the report is submitted by the committee, there will be several options available to the Chief Justice of India. Therefore, at this stage, it is not necessary to interfere in this Writ Petition. There are wider prayers against some of the decisions of this Court. At this stage, according to us it is not necessary to go into that aspect."

With these observations, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition.

About the Petition

The petition by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara argued that this judicially created exception violates the principle of "equality before law" enshrined in the Constitution. It asserts that while the judiciary is sovereign in adjudication, law enforcement agencies must be free to investigate criminal offenses involving judges without prior approval.

The controversy stems from allegations of corruption against Justice Yashwant Varma. "In retrospect, the protection which the founding fathers ingrained in the constitution has become counterproductive. The Petitioners are forced to say so because of many instances of malpractice, corruption and improbity that they come across literally every other day. The latest being the news reports of the recovery of Rs. 15 crores or so in cash from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma by sheer accident. The media reports state that cash was found by firemen when a blaze broke out at the judge’s residence on the night of the Holi festival, the judge was not present at his residence, his family had called the emergency services. The information about the cash was passed onto the police, it travelled through the Government echelons and was finally conveyed to the Chief Justice of India," the petition stated.

The petition questioned why no FIR was lodged when large volumes of unaccounted cash were reportedly discovered and why the Supreme Court did not immediately disclose the incident to the public. It criticizes the decision of the collegium to conduct an internal inquiry instead of directing law enforcement to take action, arguing that such measures undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

"If it were a bureaucrat, politician or any other government official in the place of Justice Varma, an FIR would have been lodged in no time. The police would have started investigation, even made arrests and the newspapers would have reported it on the very same day. However, nothing of the sought can happen here. To a common man it would appear strange," the petition read.

It is to be noted that on March 22, the Supreme Court had issued a press release stating the details of the inquiry report regarding the alleged discovery of a substantial amount of cash from the residence of Justice Varma. It also contains the photos and videos of the place.