The Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma following the alleged discovery of a substantial amount of unaccounted cash at his residence on March 14.
The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that an in-house committee, formed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, is already investigating the matter. The Court emphasized that if the committee finds any wrongdoing, appropriate legal action will be taken.
Supreme Court Defers to In-House Investigation
“The in-house inquiry is ongoing. If the report uncovers any irregularities, an FIR can be ordered, or the matter can be referred to Parliament. At this stage, it is not appropriate to consider this petition,” the Bench observed.
The petition, filed by advocates Mathews J Nedumpara and Hemali Suresh Kurne, raised concerns about transparency and the delay in initiating criminal proceedings. However, Justice Oka responded, “Please review the judgments that establish the in-house inquiry process. Once the process is completed, all legal options remain open.”
Allegations of Corruption and Judicial Accountability
A fire at Justice Varma’s residence inadvertently led to the discovery of unaccounted cash, reportedly damaged in the incident, as first reported by Times of India. The incident triggered allegations of corruption, which Justice Varma has firmly denied, calling it a conspiracy against him.
A video allegedly showing the recovery of the burnt cash was shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner with the Chief Justice of the High Court and later made available on the Supreme Court website. Additionally, the Supreme Court published the Delhi High Court Chief Justice’s report on the incident along with Justice Varma’s response.
CJI Establishes Three-Member Inquiry Committee
On March 22, the Chief Justice of India constituted a three-member committee to investigate the allegations. The committee has since begun its inquiry. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Collegium, on March 24, recommended Justice Varma’s repatriation to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court. The Central government has yet to approve this recommendation.
Petitioner Calls for Criminal Charges, Challenges Constitution Bench Ruling
Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara argued that the delay in initiating criminal proceedings suggests a possible cover-up. Calling it an “open and shut case” of judicial corruption, he alleged that the presence of unaccounted cash pointed to black money generated through the “sale of justice.”
Nedumpara also criticized the handling of the matter through an administrative inquiry instead of criminal prosecution. He challenged the Supreme Court’s 1991 Constitution Bench ruling in K Veeraswami v. Union of India, which requires prior approval from the Chief Justice of India before initiating criminal proceedings against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge. “This ruling creates a special class of judges immune from the penal laws of the land and has even prevented FIRs from being registered in POCSO cases,” the plea stated.
Supreme Court’s Decision and Next Steps
Rejecting the plea, the Supreme Court stated: “The petitioner was heard in person. Regarding the third respondent, the Supreme Court website confirms that an in-house inquiry is ongoing. Once the committee submits its report, the CJI will have several options, including directing an FIR or referring the matter to Parliament. At this stage, reconsidering prior judgments or entertaining this plea is unwarranted.”
As the Supreme Court prioritizes the in-house investigation, attention now turns to the committee’s findings, which will determine whether further legal action against Justice Yashwant Varma is necessary.
