SC Rejects Urgent Plea for FIR Against Justice Varma in Cash Discovery Case

New Delhi, India – The Supreme Court of India has declined to grant an urgent hearing to a petition seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma . The plea, filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, pertains to the alleged discovery of a substantial amount of burnt cash at Justice Varma ’s official residence following a fire incident.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna addressed the matter on Wednesday, firmly refusing the request for immediate listing. CJI Khanna, who has previously discontinued the practice of oral mentions for urgent hearings, assured the petitioner that the plea would be duly listed by the registry in the ordinary course.

Nedumpara, arguing for urgent consideration, stated, "The only thing is that an FIR has to be registered against the judge. Your lordship has done a wonderful job....the publishing of the video of the burnt notes." He lauded the apex court's actions thus far but insisted on the necessity of a formal police investigation through an FIR.

CJI Khanna, however, cautioned against public pronouncements on the matter, stating, "Don't make public statements." Another petitioner present echoed concerns of differential treatment, pointing out that "if such a case was against a common citizen, then several probe agencies such as the CBI and ED would have gone after them."

The CJI responded to these assertions with restraint, concluding, "This is quite enough. The plea will come up accordingly." This signaled the Court's disinclination to expedite the hearing, despite the petitioner's emphasis on public interest and the gravity of the allegations.

Background: Fire, Cash Discovery, and Judicial Scrutiny

The controversy stems from a fire incident at Justice Varma 's residence in Lutyens Delhi on March 14th. Following the fire being extinguished by first responders, a significant quantity of cash was reportedly discovered within a room. Initial reports suggest the cash appeared to be unaccounted for, prompting immediate internal communications within law enforcement and governmental circles.

News of the discovery swiftly reached the higher echelons of the government and subsequently CJI Khanna. Taking a stern view of the matter, the CJI convened an emergency meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium. The Collegium, in a unanimous decision, recommended the immediate transfer of Justice Varma to his parent High Court, the Allahabad High Court. Justice Varma had been transferred to the Delhi High Court from Allahabad in October 2021.

While the transfer decision was swiftly implemented, reports indicate that some members of the five-judge Collegium expressed reservations that a mere transfer might be insufficient. Concerns were raised about the potential damage to the judiciary’s reputation and public trust if such a serious incident was perceived as being addressed leniently. These members reportedly suggested that Justice Varma should be asked to resign. Failing resignation, they advocated for an in-house inquiry, as a preliminary step towards potential impeachment proceedings by Parliament.

Following these deliberations, on March 22nd, CJI Khanna constituted a three-member in-house inquiry committee. This committee, tasked with investigating the allegations, was granted access to the initial inquiry report compiled by Chief Justice D K Upadhyay of the Delhi High Court, which purportedly included photographic and video evidence of the discovered cash.

Plea Challenges Veeraswami Judgement and Seeks FIR

The plea filed by Advocate Nedumpara and three others goes beyond seeking an FIR. It also challenges the Supreme Court's own precedent established in the 1991 K Veeraswami case. The Veeraswami judgement mandates that no criminal proceedings can be initiated against a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court without obtaining prior consent from the Chief Justice of India. The current plea implicitly argues that this precedent may be hindering the prompt registration of an FIR in this case, and potentially impeding a full and independent investigation.

The petitioners contend that the discovery of a substantial amount of potentially unaccounted cash warrants a thorough criminal investigation, irrespective of the judicial status of the individual involved. They emphasize the principle of equality before the law, arguing that an ordinary citizen would face immediate scrutiny and investigation by agencies like the CBI and ED in similar circumstances.

Police Investigation Commences Alongside In-House Inquiry

Parallel to the Supreme Court's internal inquiry, the Delhi Police has also initiated its own preliminary investigation. A team 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 inspection of the premises where the fire occurred and may question staff members residing at the judge's residence. This police action suggests a recognition of the need for an independent assessment of the facts, even as the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry progresses.

Justice Varma Denies Allegations

Justice Yashwant Varma has vehemently refuted the allegations leveled against him. In his response to Chief Justice D K Upadhyay of the Delhi High Court, Justice Varma “unequivocally” denied any involvement in the placement of cash in the storeroom. He stated that neither he nor any member of his family had ever stored cash in the location, dismissing the suggestion as "totally preposterous."

Allahabad High Court Bar Strike and Calls for Impeachment

The transfer of Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court has triggered a strong reaction from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association, which commenced an indefinite strike on Tuesday. The Bar Association is protesting the proposed transfer, viewing it as a punitive measure taken without due process or a conclusive finding of wrongdoing.

Separately, the Oudh Bar Association (OBA) of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has gone further, urging the Central Government to return the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation for transfer. The OBA has also demanded the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma , arguing that such action is necessary to "curb further damage to public faith" in the judiciary. These reactions from the Allahabad High Court Bar highlight the deeply divisive nature of the controversy and the significant impact it is having on the judicial community.

Legal and Ethical Implications

The unfolding situation surrounding Justice Varma raises critical questions concerning judicial accountability, transparency, and the mechanisms for addressing allegations of misconduct against judges in India.

The Supreme Court's reluctance to grant an urgent hearing on the FIR plea, coupled with the ongoing in-house inquiry, underscores the established protocols for handling such matters within the judiciary. The reliance on in-house inquiries, as opposed to immediate criminal investigations, reflects a balancing act between maintaining judicial independence and ensuring public accountability. The K Veeraswami judgement, while intended to protect judges from frivolous harassment, is now being challenged as potentially shielding judicial misconduct from timely and independent investigation.

The question of whether an in-house inquiry is sufficient in cases involving potential criminal conduct, or whether a formal FIR and police investigation are necessary to maintain public trust in the integrity of the judiciary, remains at the heart of this controversy. The outcome of both the in-house inquiry and any future judicial proceedings on the FIR plea will be closely watched by the legal fraternity and the public alike, as they will likely set important precedents for judicial accountability in India.

The legal community is keenly observing how the Supreme Court navigates this sensitive issue, balancing the need for a fair and thorough investigation with the imperative to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. The coming weeks are likely to be crucial in determining the future course of this case and its broader implications for judicial governance in India.