New Delhi [India], March 28 : The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a PIL seeking registration of an FIR into the alleged recovery of a stash of cash from the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said the issues raised by advocate Mathews Nedumpara are premature because an in-house inquiry is going on. After the report of in-house inquiry all options are open, said the bench.
The top court said, "After the in-house inquiry is over, several options are open. CJI can direct the register of the FIR or refer the matter to the Parliament after examining the report. Today it is not the time to consider this petition. After the in-house report, all options are open. The petition is premature."
The Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna last week constituted a three-member Committee consisting of High Court judges to conduct an inquiry into the allegations.
The committee consists of Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and Anu Sivaraman, judge of the High Court of Karnataka.
As the in-house committee is already probing the incident, the apex court refused to entertain the plea.
In its order, the bench stated, "Heard petitioner in person. As far as the grievance regarding the third respondent is concerned as can be seen from the Supreme Court website the in house-inquiry proceedings are underway. After the report is submitted by the committee there will be several options open for the CJI. Therefore, at this stage it is not correct to entertain the plea at this stage... Plea disposed of."
During the hearing today, advocate Nedumpara asked why an FIR was not registered and no arrest was made into the incident.
"Today, we cannot interfere at this stage. Let the in-house procedure be over and after that, all options are open to the Chief Justice of India," said the bench.
The petition challenged the Supreme Court's judgment in K Veeraswami vs Union of India, which mandates prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India before filing a criminal case against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge, as per incuriam.
It further called for a declaration that the recovery of cash constitutes a cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, warranting a police investigation. The petitioner sought the enactment of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 to address judicial corruption.
Justice Varma has been in the controversy after a stash of cash was allegedly recovered from his official residence here.
As per the media reports, a fire at the judge's house had inadvertently led to the recovery of cash by the firefighter.
Media reports said the cash was found initially by fire tenders when a fire broke out in the judge's residence on March 14. The judge was not present at his house.
The Supreme Court released the inquiry report of the High Court Chief Justice into the controversy relating to Justice Varma. Delhi High Court Chief Justice in his report said that he is of the prima facia opinion that the entire matter warrants a "deeper probe".
It had also released the response of Justice Varma who has denied the allegations and said that it clearly appeared to be "conspiracy to frame and malign" him.
The Supreme Court Collegium had also recommended the transfer of Justice Varma back to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court.