SC refuses urgent hearing on plea seeking FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma after inquiry found cash row claims credible. Petitioners demand criminal action following ex-CJI’s recommendation for resignation.
New Delhi: Today On May 14, A fresh petition has been submitted to the Supreme Court of India requesting that a First Information Report (FIR) be registered against Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma.
This demand is related to a controversial cash discovery incident.
The petitioners claim that an in-house inquiry panel has already found the allegations against the judge to be “prima facie true”, meaning that the initial evidence supports the charges and is serious enough to be considered in a criminal case.
The petition has been filed by lawyer Mathews Nedumpara along with three others.
They are demanding that criminal proceedings be started immediately, as they believe internal judicial inquiries are not a substitute for legal action under Indian law.
Earlier, the in-house panel, set up by the judiciary to look into the issue, completed its investigation and found substance in the allegations.
Following this, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna advised Justice Yashwant Varma to resign.
However, when the judge refused, the former CJI took further steps and “wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi” about the matter.
Despite the seriousness of the issue, the Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, refused to hear the petition urgently on Monday.
When advocate Mathews Nedumpara tried to mention the case for urgent listing, the CJI advised him to follow proper procedure, saying, “Please go through the mentioning procedure.”
The current rules in the apex court, as set by the previous Chief Justice, Sanjiv Khanna, do not allow lawyers to request urgent hearings orally in open court.
Instead, they are required to send an official email and follow the registry process.
According to the previous guidelines,
“no to oral mentioning for urgent listing and hearing of cases” and “the lawyers or the litigants will have to write an email and move the apex court registry first.”
In March this year, the same group of petitioners had approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the in-house inquiry was not enough and that a proper police investigation should be conducted.
However, at that time, the Supreme Court had dismissed their plea, calling it “premature”, because the internal inquiry had not been completed then.
Now that the internal inquiry has concluded, the petitioners argue that there is no longer any valid reason for delaying a criminal investigation.
They believe that legal action must now follow, especially since the in-house panel itself has confirmed that the allegations are credible.
The petition makes it clear that while disciplinary action through judicial channels is important, it does not take the place of a full criminal probe under the Indian Penal Code and other relevant laws.
The petition states that the delay in filing an FIR and launching a criminal case is unjustified and must be addressed by the judiciary immediately.
This case continues to raise serious questions about judicial accountability in India and has caught the attention of both the legal community and the general public.
Click Here to Read More On Justice B.R. Gavai
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
