New Delhi, March 28 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of a plea seeking direction to the Delhi Police to register an FIR and cause an effective and meaningful investigation into the allegations that a huge pile of burnt cash was discovered at the official bungalow of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court.
“The ‘in-house’ inquiry is ongoing. If the report finds something wrong, an FIR could be directed, or the matter could be referred to the Parliament. Today is not the time to consider (the registration of FIR),” a bench headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka told advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, the party in-person.
After the report is submitted by the committee constituted in terms of the “in-house procedure”, there are several options open for the Chief Justice of India (CJI), added the Bench, also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
“At this stage, it would not be appropriate to entertain this petition. There are wider prayers for reading down some of the earlier judgments of this Court. At this stage, according to us, it would not be necessary to go into that aspect. Subject to what is observed above, the petition is disposed of,” ordered the apex court.
Earlier on Wednesday, CJI Sanjiv Khanna declined to give an out-of-turn hearing when mentioned for an urgent listing.
CJI Khanna told the in-person litigant not to “make public statements”, adding that the registry would list the petition in due course.
Questioning the non-registration of an FIR on March 14 itself, the day when unaccounted cash was reportedly found after the fire brigade had gone to Delhi HC judge Varma’s residence in the national capital to douse a fire, the petition said the delay on the part of the authorities concerned to make available to the public the electronic records leads to the irresistible inference that what was going on was an attempt at a cover-up.
“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 did it take almost a week for the public to know about the scandal? Justice Varma, in his explanation, stated that it is not his money, that he never kept any money, he is fully taken aback by it. Then why did he not report to the police and seek the registration of an FIR of an attempt to falsely implicate him,” the petition further said.
“The case at hand is an open-and-shut case. It is a case of holding black money accumulated by selling justice. Even attempting to believe Justice Varma’s own version, the question still remains as to why he did not file an FIR. Filing an FIR, even belatedly, is absolutely necessary to enable the police to investigate the conspiracy aspect,” the plea contended.
“In Justice Yashwant Varma’s case, no FIR has been filed to the knowledge of the petitioners. The public perception is that every effort will be made to cover up the issue, to the extent even the initial statements regarding recovery of money are now being refuted.”
Further, it sought the declaration that the three-member panel constituted by the SC Collegium has no jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into the incident and is void ab initio since it constitutes various cognisable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Saying that the corruption in the judiciary substantially and directly infringes the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, the petitioners said they, as citizens of the country, have every right, unquestionable locus standi, to directly petition the SC.
The plea questioned the judgement of a five-judge Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India case, where it was held that no criminal case should be registered 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 (CJI) is consulted in the matter.
“The said observation of the Court is one rendered per incuriam, in ignorance of law and sub silentio, without noticing that the police are under a statutory duty to register an FIR when it receives information of a cognisable offence, and the said direction of the Court is nothing short of restraining the police from discharging their statutory duty,” it said.
The plea said that such a direction creates a special class of judges immune from the penal laws of the land and has stood in the way of an FIR being registered even in an offence involving POCSO.
Following the alleged cash discovery, which sent shockwaves across the judicial corridors, CJI Khanna had constituted the 3-member committee to conduct an inquiry against Justice Varma and asked the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court not to assign him any judicial work for the time being.
“The Chief Justice of India has constituted a three-member committee consisting of Mr Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Mr Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and Ms Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, for conducting an inquiry into the allegations against Mr Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge of the High Court of Delhi,” said a statement released by the Supreme Court.
On Monday, Delhi HC’s Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya withdrew judicial work from Justice Varma, the second senior-most judge of the Delhi High Court, till further orders. Later in the day, the Supreme Court Collegium, headed by CJI Khanna, recommended that the Centre repatriate Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court. However, the Centre has yet to act upon the recommendation made by the SC Collegium to repatriate Justice Varma to the Allahabad HC.
Meanwhile, several leaders of various bar associations urged CJI Khanna and senior judges of the apex court Collegium on Thursday to withdraw the transfer of Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court.
–IANS
pds/dpb
