A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court regarding Justice Yashwant Varma Cash Row, seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma and challenging the formation of a three-member committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India to investigate the matter.

The plea, filed by Supreme Court Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, challenges the Supreme Court’s judgement in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which mandates prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before registering a criminal case under Section 154 CrPC against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge.

The petitioner mention that while most judges uphold integrity, cases like the present one should not bypass the established criminal procedure. The plea states:

"The Petitioners, in all humility, believe that the consequence of the aforesaid direction, that no FIR shall be filed, was certainly not present in the minds of the Hon'ble judges. The said direction creates a special class of privileged men/women, immune from the penal laws of the land. Our judges, except for a minority, and not a microscopic one, are men and women of the greatest of erudition, integrity, learning and independence. Judges do not commit crimes. But incidents where judges are caught red handed accepting money as in the case of Justice Nirmal Yadav or in the recent case of Justice Yashwant Varma, so too, being involved POCSO and other cases, cannot be denied.The judgement in K. Veeraswami's case, to the knowledge of the Petitioners has stood in the way of an FIR being registered even in an offence involving POCSO."

In its plea, Adv. Mathews Questioning the non-registration of FIR in Justice Varma's case.

Further, the plea also highlighted that the breach of trust of the public was restored when the Supreme Court made the fire-dousing video and Delhi High Court's Chief Justice Report available for public access on its website.

"In Justice Yashwant Varma's case no FIR has been filed to the knowledge of the Petitioners. The public perception is that very effort will be made to cover up the issue, to the extent even the initial statements regarding recovery of money is now being refuted.However, the Supreme Court uploading on its website the report of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi along with the explanation from Justice Varma and the video of the fire force dousing huge volumes of currency notes, has to some extend helped public trust to be restored."

The plea further argues that appointing a three-member committee to conduct an in-house inquiry, rather than initiating criminal proceedings through an FIR constitutes a significant disservice to the public interest.

"The collegium in appointing a committee of judges to conduct an in-house inquiry, instead of directing that an FIR shall be lodged, has done a great disservice to the public interest, the fair name and the reputation of the Supreme Court and the institution of judiciary and even Justice Varma if one were to believe his version, which is ex facie absurd."

Case Brief:

The fire broke out at the house of Justice Yashwant Varma, bringing emergency responders to the scene. While putting out the fire, officials found a significant stash of cash, leading to questions about its source and purpose.

The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

a) Declare that the incident of recovery of huge sums of unaccounted money from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, by the fire force/police when their services for sought to douse fire, constitute a cognisable offence punishable under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that the police is duty bound to register an FIR;

(b) Declare that the observations in paragraph 60 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. 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 is one rendered per incuriam and sub silentio;

c) Declare that the 3-member Committee constituted by the collegium has no jurisdiction to investigate the incident and that the resolution of the collegium investing the Committee the power to conduct such an investigation is one rendered void ab initio inasmuch as the collegium cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself to order so where the Parliament or the Constitution has conferred none;

d) Issue directions to the Delhi Police to register an FIR and ensure a thorough and effective investigation.

e) Prohibit any individual or authority, including those referenced in K. Veeraswami's case, from interfering with the state's sovereign policing function, particularly in the registration of an FIR and the investigation of the crime.

f) Direct the Government to take concrete and meaningful steps to combat corruption at all levels of the judiciary, including the enactment of the lapsed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010.