Cash-discovery row: Supreme Court to hear PIL for FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma

Justice Varma has been in the eye of storm over alleged discovery of cash pile at his official residence here during the fire incident on the night of March 14-15.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to take up a plea seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR against Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma following alleged discovery of unaccounted money during the fire incident at his official residence here on the night of March 14-15.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna assured petitioner-lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, who sought urgent hearing, that his petition would come up for consideration and he should check up with Registry.

The petitioner said he wanted only thing that an FIR has to be registered against the judge.

He lauded the CJI for making public all documents including the video in the matter.

The court asked him not to make any public statements. It also told him that he would get a date of hearing.

The PIL was filed jointly by three lawyers -- Mathews J Nedumpara, Hemali Suresh Kurne, Rajesh Vishnu Adrekar -- and a Chartered Accountant, Mansha Nimesh Mehta, in the top court. It made Justice Varma, CBI, ED, Income Tax and members of the judges' committee as parties to the matter.

The petition contended that the three-member committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India on March 22 has no jurisdiction to conduct a probe into the incident, constituting various cognisable offences under the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).

It also said that the decision of 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 where the Parliament or the Constitution has conferred none.

"The fire force/police when their services for sought to douse fire, constitute a cognisable offence punishable under various provisions of the BNS and that the police is duty bound to register an FIR," the plea said.

The plea claimed the case at hand is an open-and-shut case.

"It is a case of a 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," it said.

It further contended that the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in K Veeraswami Vs Union of India (1991) prohibiting that no criminal case shall be registered against a judge of a High court or Supreme Court without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India is one rendered per incuriam and sub silentio.

"The police is duty bound to register an FIR when it receives information of a cognisable offence," the plea said.

The petitioners sought order from the top court directing the Delhi Police to register an FIR and commence an effective and meaningful investigation.

They sought an order to restrain and prohibit any person or authority, even authorities as contemplated in K Veeraswami's case, from interfering with the sovereign policing function in the probe.

The pea also sought appropriate order 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.

The plea added that equality before law and equal protection of law is the core of our Constitution.

"All are equal before law and the criminal laws apply equally to all, irrespective of one's status, position, etc. The only exception, may immunity, in our constitutional scheme is extended to the President and the Governors, the sovereign who represents we the people," the plea said.

The plea stated that the law is the very edifice on which the concept of rule of law is built. Even the King is not considered above law, but under God and the law.

However, the five-judge Constitution bench of this court in the Veeraswami case directed 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.

As part of in-house inquiry, the CJI Sanjiv Khanna on March 22 ordered setting up of the panel, consisting of Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Justice G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and Ms Anu Sivaraman, judge of the Karnataka High Court to probe charges against Justice Varma. The CJI also directed for withdrawing judicial work from Justice Varma, who was subsequently recommended for repatriation to the Allahabad High Court.