Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea for FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) against Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma from whose residence a huge pile of cash was allegedly recovered on March 14. .A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan declined to admit the petition filed by advocates Mathews J Nedumpara and Hemali Suresh Kurne after noting that an in-house committee set up by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna is already looking into the matter and if the committee concludes that there is something wrong, then law will take its course."The in-house inquiry is ongoing. If the report sees something wrong, FIR can be directed or matter can be referred to parliament. Today is not the time to consider it," the Bench remarked."Please see what happened in Kerala. In a POCSO case, allegations were against a retired judge and police could not write the name of the accused. There was allegation. Police can only probe it. Courts cannot probe it," Nedumpara submitted."Please read both judgments laying down in house inquiry process. After the process, all options are open," Justice Oka said."The common man keeps asking why no FIR registered on March 14, why no FIR, no arrest, no seizure, no criminal law put into motion . Why a week to release the scandal. Why did the collegium not say it has the videos etc," Nedumpara contended."We have seen the plea. These are questions raised. Now internal inquiry is ongoing. But we cannot interfere at this stage and then all options are open with the Chief Justice of India," the Bench said."Common man will not understand," Nedumpara responded."You must educate the common man about the Supreme Court judgments laying down the law," Justice Oka remarked.Since the in-house committee is already probing the incident, the Court refused to entertain the present plea."Heard petitioner in person. As far as grievance regarding third respondent is concerned as can be seen from supreme court website the in house inquiry proceedings are underway. After the report is submitted by the committee there will be several options open for the CJI. Therefore, at this stage not correct to entertain the plea at this stage. At this stage it is not needed to reconsider judgments of this court. Plea disposed of," the Court ordered..After the in-house inquiry report, if something is found wrong, the CJI can direct registration of FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma or refer matter to parliament. Supreme Court.A fire at Justice Varma's house had inadvertently led to the recovery of unaccounted cash on March 14, Times of India reported.The incident led to allegations of corruption against Justice Varma, who has denied such accusations and maintained that it appeared to be a conspiracy to frame him.A video of the recovery of burnt cash was also apparently shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner with the Chief Justice of the High Court and has since been shared by the Supreme Court on its website.The Supreme Court also published a report of Delhi High Court Chief Justice on the incident along with Justice Varma's response.Further, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) initiated an in-house probe into the allegations and set up a three-member committee on March 22 to conduct the probe.The committee has already started its probe. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Collegium on March 24 also recommended that Justice Varma be repatriated to his parent court - the Allahabad High Court.The Central government is yet to clear the Collegium decision..Nedumpara raised questions over the delay in initiating criminal proceedings, pointing to a possible cover-up.Calling it an “open and shut case” of judicial corruption, Nedumpara alleged that the presence of unaccounted cash pointed to black money generated through the “sale of justice.” He also took objection to the Supreme Court Collegium’s decision to form a three-member committee to examine the issue, stating that the alleged offence fell squarely within the scope of criminal law under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.Nedumpara further contended that the matter should not be handled through administrative processes alone, and argued that instead of transferring the judge, criminal charges should be brought if the allegations are found to be true.The petition also challenged the five-judge Constitution Bench decision in K Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), which requires prior approval of the Chief Justice of India before initiating any criminal case against a sitting judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court.“This direction creates a special class of judges, immune from the penal laws of the land, and has even prevented FIRs from being registered in cases involving POCSO,” the plea claimed..[Read Live Coverage]