SC Declines Urgent Plea for FIR Against Judge Varma Amid Cash Discovery Inquiry

New Delhi, India – The Supreme Court of India has refused to grant an urgent hearing to a petition seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Delhi High Court judge Justice YashwantVarma . The plea, brought before a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on Wednesday, concerns the alleged discovery of a substantial amount of semi-burnt cash at Justice Varma 's official residence following a fire incident.

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, representing the petitioners, urged the court for an immediate listing, emphasizing the matter's significant public interest. However, CJI Khanna, who has recently discontinued the practice of oral case mentions for urgent hearings, assured the petitioner that the registry would list the plea in due course.

"The only thing is that an FIR has to be registered against the judge," Nedumpara stated, acknowledging the Supreme Court’s actions thus far. "Your lordship has done a wonderful job....the publishing of the video of the burnt notes."

CJI Khanna, while acknowledging the plea, cautioned against public pronouncements. "Don't make public statements," he advised.

Another petitioner, a woman co-petitioner in the case, drew a comparison to the treatment of ordinary citizens in similar situations. "If such a case was against a common citizen, then several probe agencies such as the CBI and ED would have gone after them," she remarked, highlighting the perceived disparity in accountability.

CJI Khanna concluded the brief hearing by reiterating, "This is quite enough. The plea will come up accordingly."

Background: Fire, Cash, and Collegium Intervention

The controversy stems from a fire incident at Justice Varma 's residence in Lutyens Delhi on March 14th at approximately 11:35 PM. Firefighters and police responding to the scene reportedly discovered a large quantity of cash within a room in the residence. Initial reports indicated the cash was partially burnt, sparking immediate concerns and triggering a swift chain of events within the judiciary and the government.

News of the discovery reached senior police officials, government authorities, and eventually CJI Khanna. The CJI, taking a serious view of the matter, convened an emergency meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium. The Collegium, led by CJI Khanna, reportedly reached a unanimous decision to transfer Justice Varma to his parent High Court, the Allahabad High Court. Justice Varma had been serving at the Delhi High Court since October 2021, having been transferred from Allahabad previously.

Sources suggest that while the transfer decision was unanimous, some members of the Collegium expressed reservations that a mere transfer might be insufficient given the gravity of the situation. Concerns were raised that such an action alone could damage the judiciary's reputation and erode public trust. Alternative measures, including requesting Justice Varma 's resignation or initiating an in-house inquiry leading to potential impeachment proceedings, were reportedly discussed.

In-House Inquiry and Justice Varma 's Denials

On March 22nd, CJI Khanna formally constituted a three-member in-house committee to conduct a detailed inquiry into the allegations. The committee was tasked with reviewing a preliminary report prepared by Chief Justice D.K.Upadhyay of the Delhi High Court, which reportedly included photographic and video evidence of the discovered cash. Significantly, the Supreme Court decided to publicly upload Justice Upadhyay 's inquiry report, signaling a commitment to transparency.

Justice Varma has vehemently refuted the allegations. In his response to Chief Justice Upadhyay , Justice Varma "unequivocally" denied any involvement, stating that neither he nor any family member had ever placed cash in the storeroom. He dismissed the suggestion of the cash being stored by them as "totally preposterous."

Plea Challenges Judicial Immunity and Seeks FIR

The plea submitted by Advocate Nedumpara and three other petitioners goes beyond seeking an FIR against Justice Varma . It also directly challenges the legal precedent established in the 1991 K Veeraswami case. In K Veeraswami , the Supreme Court ruled that criminal proceedings against a High Court or Supreme Court judge cannot be initiated without prior consent from the Chief Justice of India. The current plea argues for a re-evaluation of this judicial protection in light of the present circumstances and broader principles of accountability.

The petitioners contend that the situation warrants a formal police investigation through the registration of an FIR, arguing that the principles of equal application of law should apply to all citizens, including members of the judiciary. They emphasize the need for a thorough and impartial probe to ascertain the facts surrounding the cash discovery and to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.

Police Team Visits Justice Varma 's Residence

Adding another layer to the unfolding situation, a team from the Delhi Police, led by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (New Delhi), visited Justice Varma ’s residence on Wednesday. Police sources indicate that the team is conducting an initial inspection of the premises, specifically focusing on the area where the fire originated and the subsequent cash discovery was made. It is also anticipated that the police may question staff members employed at Justice Varma 's residence as part of their preliminary inquiries.

Bar Associations React: Protests and Demands

The controversy surrounding Justice Varma has also triggered reactions from bar associations. The Allahabad High Court Bar Association commenced an indefinite strike on Tuesday, protesting the proposed transfer of Justice Varma to Allahabad. Lawyers in Allahabad view the transfer as a demotion and an attempt to shift the problem rather than address the allegations directly.

Similarly, the Oudh Bar Association (OBA) of the Lucknow bench of the High Court has urged the Central Government to return the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation for Justice Varma 's transfer. The OBA has gone further, demanding impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma , arguing that such action is necessary to "curb further damage to public faith" in the judiciary.

Legal and Ethical Implications

This case raises several critical legal and ethical questions concerning judicial accountability, transparency, and the balance between judicial independence and public trust. The Supreme Court's refusal to immediately entertain the urgent plea for an FIR highlights the complexities involved in initiating criminal investigations against sitting judges, particularly in light of the K Veeraswami judgment.

The in-house inquiry, while a step towards internal accountability, is viewed by some as potentially insufficient to address the serious nature of the allegations. The public release of the inquiry report demonstrates a degree of transparency, but questions remain about the scope and powers of such internal inquiries compared to formal police investigations.

The challenge to the K Veeraswami precedent is significant. If the Supreme Court were to reconsider or modify this judgment, it could have far-reaching implications for the accountability framework for the judiciary, potentially removing or reducing the requirement for prior CJI consent before initiating criminal proceedings against judges.

The unfolding events surrounding Justice Varma are being closely watched by the legal community and the public at large. The outcome of the in-house inquiry, any further judicial pronouncements on the FIR plea, and the potential challenge to the K Veeraswami case will all contribute to shaping the future discourse on judicial accountability and the delicate balance necessary to maintain both the independence and integrity of the Indian judiciary.