New Delhi, July 21
Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on Monday objected when an advocate referred Justice Yashwant Varma -- who is currently embroiled in cash discovery allegations in the storeroom attached to his official residence in New Delhi -- simply as “Varma”.
“Is he your friend? He is still Justice Varma. Have some decorum! You are referring to a learned judge,” CJI Gavai told advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, who was seeking an out-of-turn hearing on his third consecutive plea for directions to the Delhi Police to register an FIR regarding the alleged recovery of large amounts of unaccounted cash from the bungalow of Justice Varma.
Declining to pass any order as to urgent listing of the matter, the CJI asked, “You want the petition to be dismissed right now?”
“It is impossible to be dismissed. FIR has to be registered. Now, Varma seems to be asking for that only. There has to be an FIR and investigation,” said Nedumpara.
This invited an objection from CJI Gavai and asked Nedumpara to maintain “some decorum” since Justice Varma is still a judge of the Constitutional Court.
In his petition, advocate Nedumpara, along with his co-petitioners, contended that the Union government -- which oversees the Delhi Police -- was duty-bound to direct the registration of an FIR as soon as a large pile of burnt cash was discovered in the storeroom attached to Justice Varma’s bungalow, after the fire brigade responded to a blaze there on March 14.
In May, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain a similar plea filed by Nedumpara and other petitioners seeking criminal prosecution of Justice Varma.
“There was an in-house inquiry report. It has been forwarded to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India for action. If you are seeking a writ of mandamus, you have to first make a representation to those authorities before which the issue is pending,” a bench headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka (now retired) had told advocate Nedumpara, the lead petitioner-in-person.
"You make a representation calling upon them (the President and the PM) to take action. If they don't take action, then you can come here," the Bench, also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, had added.
In the last week of March, the same Bench had disposed of another plea seeking direction to the Delhi Police to register an FIR and cause an effective and meaningful investigation into the cash-discovery allegations.
"The ‘in-house’ inquiry is ongoing. If the report finds something wrong, an FIR could be directed, or the matter could be referred to the Parliament. Today is not the time to consider (the registration of FIR)," the top court had remarked then.
Following the cash-discovery episode, which sent shockwaves across the judicial corridors, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and an in-house probe was set up to probe the allegations.
The three-member inquiry committee, constituted by then CJI Justice Khanna, found the allegations serious enough to merit impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma.
As per sources, the Union government is preparing to initiate removal proceedings against Justice Varma, and an impeachment motion will likely be brought in the Monsoon Session of Parliament.
Meanwhile, Justice Varma has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging his indictment by the three-member in-house committee. As per his petition, the in-house panel acted in a “pre-determined manner” and denied Justice Varma a fair opportunity to defend himself.
