Cash discovery row: Supreme Court to hear petition for FIR as police inspect Judge Yashwant Varma's residence

Justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition requesting the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) following a police inspection of the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, who has since been removed from the Delhi High Court, according to a report by the Indian Express. A police team, led by Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Devesh Mahla, arrived at the bungalow located at 30 Tughlak Crescent around 1:30 pm and spent nearly two hours there.

DCP Mahla was accompanied by Tughlak Road Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Virender Jain and two head constables. Sources cited in the Indian Express report state that the team also visited the storeroom where the fire had broken out and the lawn where some charred items were placed, recording videos of the scene. The incident site was reportedly “preserved” in the presence of a court official.

“The team also interviewed Justice Varma’s family members and staff, including his assistant, who made the first call to the police regarding the fire on March 14,” a senior police officer stated. Following the incident, police made a daily diary entry at the Tughlak Road police station but were denied entry to the house the next morning by security personnel.

Meanwhile, the police are investigating the cause of the fire. Initially, it is suspected that the fire resulted from a short circuit. Authorities, as per protocol, will seek reports from power department officials and forensic experts to determine the exact cause.

On Tuesday, a three-member committee of judges, constituted by the Supreme Court, visited Justice Varma’s house. On Wednesday, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna announced that a petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma regarding the discovery of cash had been listed for hearing.

“Your matter has been listed,” Chief Justice Khanna informed Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, who had made an oral request for urgent consideration. The Chief Justice also advised him against making any public statements and said he would receive a hearing date from the registry.

Nedumpara emphasized to the bench that “the only thing that needs to be done is to register an FIR against the judge.” He commended the Chief Justice for making public the communications and other documents related to the controversy, saying, “Your Lordship has done a wonderful job… the publishing of the video and the burnt notes.”

Another petitioner remarked that if a similar amount of money had been discovered with a businessman, agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department would have pursued him, as stated in the report.

The Supreme Court, in its 1991 ruling in K Veeraswami Vs. Union of India established that prior approval from the Chief Justice is mandatory for registering a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a sitting judge of a High Court or Supreme Court.

The petitioner has challenged this ruling, stating, “The consequence of the aforementioned direction—that no FIR shall be filed—was certainly not in the minds of the Honorable judges. This direction creates a special class of privileged individuals who are immune from the penal laws of the land. Our judges, with a few exceptions, are individuals of great erudition, integrity, learning, and independence. Judges do not commit crimes. However, incidents where judges have been caught red-handed, involving POCSO and other cases, cannot be denied. The judgment in K Veeraswami’s case has prevented the registration of FIRs even in cases involving POCSO,” the petition stated.

The petition also questions the authority of the committee formed by the Chief Justice to investigate the incident, asserting that only the police have the jurisdiction to do so. “The Collegium’s resolution granting the committee the power to conduct such an investigation is rendered void ab initio, as the Collegium cannot assign jurisdiction upon itself where none has been conferred by Parliament or the Constitution,” it stated.