In view of the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash worth around Rs 15 crore from the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the immunity granted to judges from immediate criminal prosecution.
Filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara and other citizens, the petition requested the Apex Court to review the precedent set in K. Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991), mandating prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before registering an FIR against sitting judges.
It argued that this judicially-created exception violated the principle of equality before law enshrined in the Constitution. While the judiciary was sovereign in adjudication, law enforcement agencies must be free to investigate criminal offences involving judges without prior approval, it added.
The plea contended that the protection, which the founding fathers ingrained in the Constitution, had become counterproductive, in view of the several instances of malpractice, corruption and improbity surfacing across the country every other day against judges.
Referring to the cash-at-home incidence involving Justice Varma, the petition quoted media reports as stating that the unaccounted cash was recovered by fire officials, while they were dousing a fire that broke out at the judge’s residence on the night of Holi (March 14). While Justice Varma was not present at his residence, his family called the emergency services. The information about the cash was passed onto the police, which travelled through the Government echelons and finally reached the Chief Justice of India.
The petitioner questioned why no FIR was lodged when large volumes of unaccounted cash were reportedly discovered. It further questioned the Supreme Court’s decision not to immediately disclose the incident to the public.
The petitioner further criticised the the Apex Court Collegium’s decision to conduct an internal inquiry into the incident, instead of directing law enforcement agencies to take action. Such measures undermined public confidence in the judiciary, it added.
In case it was 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, noted the plea.
The plea further said that in Justice Varma’s case, no FIR has been filed to the knowledge of the petitioners. It said there was a public perception that very effort was being made to cover up the issue, to the extent that even the initial statements regarding the recovery of money were now being refuted.
It further said that the Supreme Court uploading on its website the report of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice, along with the explanation from Justice Varma and the video of the fire department dousing huge volumes of currency notes, however, helped in the restoration of public trust to some extent.
Citing past cases of judicial corruption, including the Justice Nirmal Yadav case, the writ petition stressed on the need for greater transparency and accountability in the higher judiciary.
It sought criminal prosecution against Justice Varma, in case the evidence supported allegations of illicit wealth accumulation, noting that impeachment alone would be insufficient.
The petitioners said being lawyers and citizens of the country, they considered it their locus standi or rather their bounden duty, to take up the issue before the Apex Court to ensure that if Justice Varma had committed the offence of accumulating wealth through corrupt means, he shall be subjected to criminal prosecution.
The writ petition further sought registration of an FIR without further delay to ensure a fair and impartial investigation into the incident.
The plea sought a declaration that the incident of recovery of unaccounted money, reportedly Rs 15 crore from the official residence of Justice Varma, constituted a cognisable offence punishable under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
It further sought declaration that the police were duty-bound to register an FIR when they received information of a cognisable offence.
The petition urged the top court of the country to declare as per incuriam and sub silentio, observations in paragraph 60 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami vs UOI 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 (CJI).
Noting that the three-member Committee constituted by the Apex Court Collegium had no jurisdiction to investigate the March 14, 2025 incident involving Justice Varma, the petition sought declaration that the resolution stating the same be rendered void ab initio on the grounds that the Collegium could not confer jurisdiction upon itself to order so where the Parliament or the Constitution has conferred none.
The plea further sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents/Delhi Police to register an FIR and cause an effective & meaningful investigation.
It also requested the Apex Court t issue a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other writ, order, or direction restraining and prohibiting any person or authority, even authorities as contemplated in K. Veeraswami’s case, from interfering with the sovereign policing function of the state, or in registering an FIR and investigating the crime.
The post Cash-at-home controversy: Plea filed in Supreme Court challenges immunity granted to judges from immediate criminal prosecution appeared first on India Legal.