The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an oral plea for an urgent hearing on a petition seeking directives for the Delhi Police to register an FIR and investigate the burnt bundles of cash found earlier this month at the residence of Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma.
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna dismissed the request for an out-of-turn listing, stating, “Sorry… we will hear it in due course.” Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, one of the petitioners, was also cautioned against making “public statements” regarding the case.
Case Background and Allegations
The case revolves around the discovery of burnt currency notes inside an outhouse at Justice Varma’s official residence on Holi. The Delhi Fire Services were called to extinguish a fire at the location, where they reportedly found the charred remains of the cash. The petitioners flagged concerns about the delay in filing an FIR, questioning why no immediate police action was taken and why details about the money only surfaced after a week.
The petitioners raised several critical points, including:
- Delay in Investigation: Why was the FIR not filed immediately?
- Accountability: Why did Justice Varma not file a police complaint himself?
- Transparency Concerns: Was there an attempt to cover up the incident?
The petitioners alleged that the incident pointed to “black money accumulated by selling justice” and demanded a thorough probe. However, Justice Varma has distanced himself from the recovered cash, calling the situation a “conspiracy” against him. He emphasized that the outhouse was left unlocked and accessible to anyone.
Legal and Political Ramifications
The Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry committee, led by chief justices of three high courts, is reviewing the case. The petitioners have challenged a 1991 Supreme Court ruling that requires consultation with the Chief Justice of India before registering a criminal case against a sitting high court or Supreme Court judge.
Meanwhile, the controversy has sparked broader discussions on judicial accountability, transparency in the appointment and disciplinary process for judges, and the role of the Supreme Court Collegium.
Justice Varma Transferred, Withdrawn from Judicial Duties
Last week, the Supreme Court decided to transfer Justice Varma to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, a move initially linked to the cash controversy but later separated from it. Additionally, he has been withdrawn from active judicial duties.
In an unprecedented move, the Delhi High Court released a report on the case, with some redactions, to maintain transparency.
Political Reactions and Government Response
The case has also taken a political turn, with opposition parties demanding a thorough investigation. On Tuesday, the central government engaged with leaders from various parties, including Congress, Trinamool Congress, DMK, BJD, BRS, YSRCP, and the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena faction, to hear their views.
The Rajya Sabha Chairperson, Jagdeep Dhankhar, also convened a meeting with floor leaders to discuss the implications of the controversy.
With the Supreme Court set to hear the case at a later date, all eyes remain on the judiciary’s approach to handling allegations against one of its own, and the steps taken to ensure transparency and accountability.
Sources By Agencies
