A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma over the alleged cash recovery incident. The petition also questions the decision of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to appoint a three-member internal committee instead of ordering a criminal investigation.
The PIL, filed by Supreme Court advocate Mathews Nedumpara, challenges the ruling in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which mandates that an FIR against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge requires prior consultation with the CJI.
"The Petitioners believe that the ruling preventing FIR registration was not intended to create a special class immune from criminal laws. While most judges uphold integrity, incidents like this demand criminal procedure."
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Judge Faces Supreme Court Collegium Review Over Cash Discovery
The plea argues that similar cases, including that of Justice Nirmal Yadav, show the necessity of legal scrutiny and accountability.
The petition questions why no FIR was filed despite the alleged discovery of large sums of cash. It cites public frustration over the judiciary’s response.
"The common man and media repeatedly ask—why was no FIR registered on March 14, the day of the incident? Why were no arrests made, no seizure recorded, no legal procedure followed?"
The petitioner asserts that forming an in-house inquiry committee instead of initiating a criminal case undermines public trust.
"By opting for an internal probe over a legal process, the judiciary risks damaging its credibility and the reputation of Justice Varma, if his defense is to be believed."
The plea argues that the K. Veeraswami ruling obstructs police authority in investigating crimes involving judges.
"Even the King is not above the law. However, the ruling in K. Veeraswami restricts the police from filing an FIR against a judge without CJI approval, violating legal principles."
The petition claims this ruling was made per incuriam (without considering legal precedents) and sub silentio (without discussion), restricting law enforcement’s role.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Relieves Justice Yashwant Varma of Judicial Duties
The PIL makes the following requests to the Supreme Court:
Declare Cash Recovery a Cognizable Offense – Recognize the incident as a criminal offense requiring an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Strike Down K. Veeraswami Restriction – Rule that the requirement of CJI approval for an FIR against judges is unconstitutional.
Invalidate the Internal Committee – Declare that the three-member committee lacks jurisdiction over the matter.
Order Delhi Police to Register an FIR – Direct law enforcement to conduct a full investigation.
Prevent Interference – Ensure that no judicial authority obstructs the FIR and investigation.
Implement Judicial Reforms – Push for legislation ensuring judicial accountability, including reviving the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies on Justice Yashwant Verma Issue Amid Delhi HC Inquiry
Background: Timeline of Events
- March 14 – A fire breaks out at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence while he is away.
- March 15 – Delhi Police inform Delhi High Court Chief Justice Upadhyay about the incident.
- March 15 (Evening) – The Chief Justice instructs an official inquiry and report.
- March 22 – The CJI forms a three-member in-house committee for further investigation.
- March 23 – The Supreme Court releases fire dousing footage and the Delhi HC report.
- March 24 – Justice Varma is relieved of judicial work following Supreme Court directions.
Justice Varma denies all allegations, claiming the cash recovery is part of a conspiracy against him.
Case Details: SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS v. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS.
