New Delhi, Mar 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a writ petition challenging the immunity granted to judges from immediate criminal prosecution, in light of the recent controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma and a request for registering an FIR against him.
The petition, filed by a group of lawyers and concerned citizens, including Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, urged the court to reconsider the precedent set in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), which mandates prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before registering an FIR against sitting judges.
A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that an in-house inquiry was already in progress and assured that all legal avenues, including the possibility of an FIR, would remain open based on the findings of the inquiry.
At the outset, Advocate Nedumpara, appearing in person, highlighted the prayers sought in the petition. Justice Oka responded, stating, "We have seen your prayers. Once the in-house inquiry is complete, several options are open. If the report indicates wrongdoing, the Chief Justice of India can direct registration of an FIR, refer the matter to Parliament, or take other appropriate actions.
Today is not the right time to delve into this question as the internal inquiry is ongoing, its premature, " Justice Oka said.
Nedumpara referenced a Kerala High Court case where an FIR was registered against a sitting judge in a POCSO matter. He contended that criminal allegations should be investigated by the police, not the judiciary, arguing that the Supreme Court should not create exceptions to established legal procedures.
In response, Justice Oka advised Nedumpara to review judicial precedents on in-house inquiries, reiterating, "After an in-house inquiry, a report is submitted. Thereafter, all options remain open."
Nedumpara further questioned why no FIR had been registered since March 14, the date of the alleged cash recovery from Justice Varma’s residence. He also raised concerns regarding conflicting statements by the fire department and the delayed disclosure of the incident. The petition alleged that the Supreme Court and its collegium had failed to inform the public about the discovery of Rs. 15 crore in cash at Justice Varma’s official residence.
Justice Oka, remarked, "Today, we are not determining right or wrong. We are simply stating that interference at this stage is premature. Let the internal inquiry be completed first." He further emphasized that the judicial system follows established protocols and urged Nedumpara to educate the public on the rationale behind judicial safeguards.
Rejecting the petition’s arguments, the Bench ruled that existing judicial mechanisms sufficiently address grievances and that no intervention was required at this stage.
The Court disposed of the writ petition saying, "Heard the first petitioner. As per the information available on the Supreme Court website, an in-house inquiry is ongoing regarding the third respondent (Justice Yashwant Varma). Once the committee submits its report, multiple options will be available to the Chief Justice of India. Therefore, at this stage, we find no necessity to interfere in this Writ Petition."
The Court also refrained from addressing broader constitutional questions raised in the petition regarding judicial accountability and immunity.
The petitioner challenged judicial immunity by arguing that it violates the constitutional principle of "equality before the law." The petitioners asserted that while the judiciary holds sovereign power in adjudication, law enforcement agencies must be free to investigate allegations against judges without prior approval.
The controversy arose following allegations of corruption against Justice Yashwant Varma. According to media reports, Rs. 15 crore in unaccounted cash was discovered at his residence by firefighters responding to a blaze on Holi night. The judge and his family were not present at the time. The information was reportedly relayed to the police, then to government authorities, and ultimately to the Chief Justice of India.
The petition criticised the Supreme Court for not initiating immediate criminal proceedings and questioned why a law enforcement-led investigation was not prioritized over an internal judicial inquiry.
"If a bureaucrat or politician had been involved, an FIR would have been lodged immediately, and arrests would have followed. However, the same urgency is not applied when a judge is implicated," the petition stated.
On the other hand, Justice Yashwant Varma has denied the allegations, calling them an orchestrated smear campaign.
In his reply given to the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice Varma asserted that the fire occurred in an outhouse, not his main residence, and that no cash was recovered.
Justice Varma also cited a report from the Delhi High Court Registrar, which made no mention of cash recovery, and dismissed media reports as baseless.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the appropriate course of action will be determined once the in-house inquiry concludes.
UNI SNG CS