PIL Filed in Supreme Court Urges FIR Against Justice Varma; Challenges Authority of Three-Judge In-House Committee
Kiran Raj
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash recovery incident at his official residence, and questioning the constitution of a three-member committee formed by the Chief Justice of India to investigate the matter.
The plea, filed by Supreme Court Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, challenges the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which held that a criminal case under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge can only be filed after consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
According to the petitioner, “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.”
The petition notes that “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 plea raises concerns about the non-registration of an FIR in the case of Justice Varma and mentions that public trust was partially restored when the Supreme Court made certain materials public. “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.”
The petitioner states: “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 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.”
The PIL contends that the direction of the collegium to appoint a committee instead of initiating criminal proceedings has been contrary to 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.”
It further asserts that the reasoning in the K. Veeraswami case contradicts the statutory duty of the police to register an FIR when informed of a cognizable offence. The plea includes the following statement: “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 petition states: “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 PIL seeks the following reliefs from the Supreme Court:
Declaration 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 were sought to douse fire constitutes a cognizable offence punishable under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that the police is duty bound to register an FIR;
Declaration that the observations in paragraph 60 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India prohibiting that no criminal case shall be registered against a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India is one rendered per incuriam and sub silentio;
Declaration that the three-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;
Direction to the Delhi Police to register an FIR and cause an effective and meaningful investigation;
Restraint on any person or authority, even authorities as contemplated in K. Veeraswami case, from interfering with the sovereign policing function of the state, including the registration of an FIR and investigation of the crime;
Direction to 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.
Justice Yashwant Varma became the subject of controversy on March 21 following reports of a fire at a storeroom in the outhouse of his official bungalow, which reportedly led to the discovery of sacks of cash currencies. On March 14, the fire occurred at around 11:30 PM while Justice Varma was out of town. The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice DK Upadhyay, was informed about the fire incident by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, on March 15 at around 4:50 PM.
On March 23, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member committee to conduct an in-house inquiry into the matter. This decision was made following a report by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice stating that the matter required a deeper probe.
On the same day, the Supreme Court published on its website the report by the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice Varma’s response, and photographs and video footage provided by the Delhi Police Commissioner.
Justice Varma has denied possession of the cash and stated that the matter is a conspiracy against him. On March 24, the Delhi High Court withdrew judicial work from Justice Varma following directions from the Supreme Court.
