<p>New Delhi: Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday asserted "time has come to revisit" a Supreme Court judgment that ruled prior sanction would be required to prosecute top court and high court judges, as he questioned the delay in lodging of an FIR in the cash discovery case involving high court judge Justice Yashwant Varma.</p>.<p>He also described as a "serious issue" the move of the three-judge in-house committee probing into the case to recover electronic equipment from witnesses. </p><p>"This is a serious issue. How can this be done?" Stressing on the need for a scientific criminal investigation into the matter, Dhankhar said everyone in the country was thinking if this would be washed off, whether it would fade with time.</p>.'Marriage my lifelong challenge': VP Jagdeep Dhankhar's light hearted remark at UP Governor's book launch.<p>"How come the criminal justice system was not operationalised as it would have done for every other individual? ... This issue for which people are waiting with bated breath, the money trail, its source, its purpose, did it pollute the judicial system? Who are the bigger sharks? We need to find out. Already two months have gone by and no one knows better than people before me. Investigation is required to be with expedition," he said.</p>.<p>Justice Varma was transferred to Allahabad High Court in March following the alleged recovery of a huge amount of cash from his official home in New Delhi where he was serving as a judge of Delhi High Court.</p>.<p>Speaking at a book launch event, Dhankhar said "time has come to revisit" the K Veeraswami judgment.</p>.<p>The K Veeraswami vs Union of India case of 1991 is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court that addresses the applicability of anti-corruption laws to judges of the higher judiciary and underscores the importance of judicial independence.</p>.<p>The top court had underlined that judges were indeed "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act but noted that prior sanction would be required to prosecute a judge. </p>
<p>New Delhi: Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday asserted "time has come to revisit" a Supreme Court judgment that ruled prior sanction would be required to prosecute top court and high court judges, as he questioned the delay in lodging of an FIR in the cash discovery case involving high court judge Justice Yashwant Varma.</p>.<p>He also described as a "serious issue" the move of the three-judge in-house committee probing into the case to recover electronic equipment from witnesses. </p><p>"This is a serious issue. How can this be done?" Stressing on the need for a scientific criminal investigation into the matter, Dhankhar said everyone in the country was thinking if this would be washed off, whether it would fade with time.</p>.'Marriage my lifelong challenge': VP Jagdeep Dhankhar's light hearted remark at UP Governor's book launch.<p>"How come the criminal justice system was not operationalised as it would have done for every other individual? ... This issue for which people are waiting with bated breath, the money trail, its source, its purpose, did it pollute the judicial system? Who are the bigger sharks? We need to find out. Already two months have gone by and no one knows better than people before me. Investigation is required to be with expedition," he said.</p>.<p>Justice Varma was transferred to Allahabad High Court in March following the alleged recovery of a huge amount of cash from his official home in New Delhi where he was serving as a judge of Delhi High Court.</p>.<p>Speaking at a book launch event, Dhankhar said "time has come to revisit" the K Veeraswami judgment.</p>.<p>The K Veeraswami vs Union of India case of 1991 is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court that addresses the applicability of anti-corruption laws to judges of the higher judiciary and underscores the importance of judicial independence.</p>.<p>The top court had underlined that judges were indeed "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act but noted that prior sanction would be required to prosecute a judge. </p>