Supreme Court announces to hear plea seeking registration of FIR against Delhi HC judge Justice Yashwant Varma
The Supreme Court on Wednesday announced that it had scheduled a hearing for a petition seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. The petition stems from allegations regarding the discovery and subsequent removal of cash from his official residence following an accidental fire that broke out during the night of March 14-15.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna informed advocate Mathews Nedumpara that the matter had been listed for hearing. As Nedumpara urged the bench to expedite the hearing, the CJI cautioned against making public statements on the issue and advised him to check with the registry for the exact date of the hearing.
In his submission, the counsel emphasized that the primary request in the petition was for the immediate registration of an FIR against the judge. Expressing his appreciation for the CJI’s transparency in handling the matter, Nedumpara commended the decision to make relevant communications and documents publicly accessible. “Your lordship has done a commendable job… particularly in publishing the video evidence of the burnt currency notes,” he remarked.
Another petitioner in the case pointed out that had a similar incident occurred involving a businessman, law enforcement agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department would have taken swift action. The petitioner argued that there should not be a double standard in the application of the law.
The case raises a broader legal issue linked to a 1991 Supreme Court ruling in the K. Veeraswami v. Union of India case, which established that prior approval from the Chief Justice of India is required before a criminal case can be registered under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against a sitting judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court.
The petition in question challenges this legal precedent, arguing that it effectively creates a protected class of individuals who are exempt from standard legal procedures. “The directive that no FIR shall be filed was likely not intended to grant absolute immunity to judges. However, the outcome of this ruling has led to the creation of a privileged class, shielded from the penal laws applicable to every other citizen,” the plea contends.
The petition further acknowledges the high ethical standards upheld by the majority of judges, describing them as individuals of great erudition, integrity, and independence. However, it also references instances where judges have been implicated in criminal activities, such as the case of Justice Nirmal Yadav and the recent controversy involving Justice Yashwant Varma. The plea also raises concerns about judicial involvement in cases related to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, emphasizing that the precedent set in K. Veeraswami has prevented FIRs from being filed in such instances as well.
By challenging this ruling, the petition seeks to ensure that all individuals, including members of the judiciary, remain subject to the rule of law without undue protection or preferential treatment.
