The petition, filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, argues that this special protection violates the constitutional principle of “equality before law.” It states that while judges have the sovereign power to decide cases, law enforcement must have the freedom to investigate criminal offenses involving judges without needing prior approval.
NEW DELHI: Today, 24th March, A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the legal immunity given to judges from immediate criminal prosecution.
The petitioners, including lawyers and concerned citizens, have asked the court to review the 1991 judgment in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which requires the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) approval before an FIR can be registered against a sitting judge.
ALSO READ: Justice Yashwant Varma Denies Cash Stash Seen In Video: “Conspiracy To Frame Me”
The petition, filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, argues that this special protection violates the constitutional principle of “equality before law.” It states that while judges have the sovereign power to decide cases, law enforcement must have the freedom to investigate criminal offenses involving judges without needing prior approval.
The petition arises from serious corruption allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma. According to media reports, about Rs. 15 crores in cash was discovered at his official residence when firemen responded to a blaze on Holi night.
“In retrospect, the protection which the founding fathers ingrained in the constitution has become counterproductive. The Petitioners are forced to say so because of many instances of malpractice, corruption and improbity that they come across literally every other day. The latest being the news reports of the recovery of Rs. 15 crores or so in cash from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma by sheer accident. The media reports state that cash was found by firemen when a blaze broke out at the judge’s residence on the night of the Holi festival, the judge was not present at his residence, his family had called the emergency services. The information about the cash was passed onto the police, it travelled through the Government echelons and was finally conveyed to the Chief Justice of India,” the petition states.
The petition questions why no FIR was registered despite the discovery of a large sum of unaccounted cash and criticizes the Supreme Court’s decision to conduct an internal inquiry instead of ordering an independent police investigation.
“If it were a bureaucrat, politician or any other government official in the place of Justice Varma, an FIR would have been lodged in no time. The police would have started investigation, even made arrests and the newspapers would have reported it on the very same day. However, nothing of the sought can happen here. To a common man it would appear strange,” the petition reads.
The petitioners also allege that there is an effort to cover up the issue, stating,
“In Justice Yashwant Varma’s case no FIR has been filed to the knowledge of the Petitioners. The public perception is that very 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 Hon’ble 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 extent helped public trust to be restored.”
The petition references past judicial corruption cases, such as the Justice Nirmal Yadav case, to argue that stronger measures are needed to ensure judicial accountability.
It insists that if Justice Varma is guilty of corruption, criminal prosecution should follow, stating, “The Petitioner’s being lawyers and citizens consider that they have locus standi, nay, that is their bounden duty to take up the issue before this Hon’ble Court to ensure that if Justice Varma has in fact committed the offence of accumulating wealth through corrupt means, he shall be subjected to criminal prosecution, even an impeachment by itself will not suffice.”
Reliefs Sought in the Petition
The petitioners have requested the Supreme Court to:
- Declare that the recovery of Rs. 15 crores from Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence constitutes a cognizable offense and that the police must register an FIR.
- Declare that paragraph 60 of the K. Veeraswami v. Union of India judgment, which mandates CJI’s approval before registering a case against a judge, is invalid.
- Declare that the three-member committee formed by the Supreme Court collegium has no authority to investigate the matter.
- Direct the Delhi Police to immediately register an FIR and conduct a fair and impartial investigation.
- Prohibit any interference from authorities in the police investigation of this case.
Supreme Court’s Response and Justice Varma’s Denial
On March 22, the Supreme Court issued a press release, sharing the details of an internal inquiry into the allegations. The press release included photos and videos related to the incident. The court also provided a video link to the footage shared by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, with the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
Meanwhile, Justice Yashwant Varma has denied all allegations, calling them a conspiracy to tarnish his reputation. He clarified that the fire occurred in an outhouse and not in his main residence and that no cash was found. He further stated that neither he nor his staff saw any money and disputed media claims about the alleged cash recovery.
He cited a report from the Delhi High Court Registrar, which did not mention any cash being discovered. Justice Varma also linked the accusations to a “smear campaign” and said his judicial record remains clean. He urged authorities to conduct a fair inquiry into the allegations against him.
Supreme Court Forms Three-Judge Committee
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has formed a three-member committee to investigate the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma. The committee includes the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and a judge from the Karnataka High Court.
The Supreme Court also made public the inquiry report submitted by Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay.
In the report, Chief Justice Upadhyay stated, “I am of the prima facie opinion that the entire matter warrants a deeper probe.”
Case Title:
SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
