A fresh plea seeking an FIR against former judge Yashwant Varma over the cash-at-home controversy was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, the petitioner complaining that the Registry would not number or list it. The CJI did not say anything expressly on listing. Earlier attempts, an FIR PIL in the Supreme Court and a CBI-probe plea in the Delhi High Court, have both been dismissed.
New Delhi: A petition seeking the registration of a First Information Report against former judge Yashwant Varma, in connection with the alleged recovery of cash from his official residence, was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for urgent listing.
Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara mentioned the matter, submitting that the Registry was refusing to list it. “The matter has to be listed, your lordship can dismiss the matter. But let the Registry number and list it,” he urged. Another petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that the charges against Justice Varma had been found proved by the Lok Sabha enquiry committee and that there should be no impediment to the registration of an FIR, urging that there be equality and equal treatment and that the Court had the power to order an FIR. The CJI did not expressly state anything about listing.
The earlier proceedings
The mention comes after a series of unsuccessful attempts to secure criminal action. Last month, a Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed a PIL filed by Ghanshyam Upadhyay seeking an FIR against Justice Varma. Earlier this week, the Delhi High Court dismissed a separate petition seeking a CBI probe against him, describing it as a wild witch-hunt.
Justice Varma, a former judge of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, submitted his resignation in April, while a Lok Sabha enquiry into the matter was pending. That enquiry panel, constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, submitted its report to the Lok Sabha in August, recording that it found the charges against Justice Varma to be proved.
The findings of the enquiry committee are the conclusions of a statutory panel under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which operates in the domain of the constitutional process for the removal of a judge; they are not a criminal conviction, no court has tried or convicted Justice Varma, and no FIR has, to date, been ordered. The allegations, in the criminal sense, remain untested, and Justice Varma is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why it matters
The question the petitioners raise, whether an FIR can be registered against a judge over such allegations, engages a distinct area of law. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, no criminal case can be registered against a judge of the higher judiciary without prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India, a safeguard intended to protect judicial independence from motivated prosecutions. That requirement, and the manner of its application to a judge who has since resigned, is part of the backdrop against which any plea for an FIR falls to be considered.
The present development is, at this stage, only a mention, a request that the Registry number and list the petition, and not a hearing on its merits. The CJI did not indicate whether the matter would be listed, and the petition has not been admitted or decided. The dismissal of the earlier FIR PIL by the Supreme Court, and of the CBI-probe plea by the Delhi High Court, indicates the difficulty such petitions have so far faced, though each turned on its own facts and reasoning.
It bears emphasis that the removal process and the criminal process are separate tracks. A finding by a Judges (Inquiry) Act committee goes to the constitutional question of a judge’s fitness to hold office and to any motion for removal in Parliament; it does not, by itself, translate into criminal liability, which can be established only through a duly instituted criminal proceeding, following the safeguards the law requires, and a trial. What the Court will make of the present plea, if it is listed at all, remains to be seen; nothing has been decided.
Matter: Petition seeking registration of an FIR against former judge Yashwant Varma, mentioned for urgent listing before the Chief Justice of India
Before: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Supreme Court of India
Mentioned by: Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, and another petitioner in person
Status: Mention only; no order on listing. Earlier FIR PIL dismissed by the Supreme Court and a CBI-probe plea by the Delhi High Court. Allegations untested in the criminal sense; presumption of innocence applies.