NEW DELHI: A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court 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 on the night of March 14-15.
On basis of a report, Chief Justice of India 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.
PIL in Supreme Court Seeks FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma Over Alleged Cash Recovery
In a fresh development, 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.
Besides, the Supreme Court and the Union government, the plea named Justice Varma, CBI, ED, Income Tax and member of judges committee as party respondents.
Judicial Corruption Case: SC Petition Challenges Probe Panel’s Jurisdiction
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 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
It also said that the decision 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 so 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.
The plea also 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 cause 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 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 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.
The plea said only 11 % of the judges of this country have declared their assets. There is a special court to try the offences relating to MPs and MLAs in every district. But when it comes to judges, an FIR cannot be registered even for an IPC offence. The common man cannot be blamed if he perceives the same to be a double standard, it said.
"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 is now being refuted. However, the Supreme Court uploading on its website the report of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi along with the explanation from Justice Varma and the video of the fire force dousing huge volumes of currency notes, has to some extend helped public trust to be restored," it said.
The plea raised questions 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 it took over almost a week for the public to know about the scandal. Why did the Supreme Court and its collegium and not tell the public at large that such a shocking incident had happened and that it is in possession of the videos and records sent to it by the Ministry of Home and other agencies, so also, why did the Chief of the fire force go on to deny that no cash was recovered and thereafter contradict it.
