The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking registration of an FIR against a sitting judge, holding it non-maintainable due to the petitioners' failure to first approach the President and the Prime Minister. The plea pertained to allegations of illicit cash recovery from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, with the Court emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements under constitutional norms.
The writ petition was filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara and others, alleging serious misconduct on the part of Justice Yashwant Varma in light of an alleged recovery of unexplained cash following a fire incident at his official residence on March 14. The petitioners sought criminal prosecution and registration of an FIR, asserting that the recovery pointed to cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Earlier, a three-judge in-house inquiry committee was constituted by the Chief Justice of India on March 21 after receiving a report from the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court recommending further probe. The report, response of Justice Varma, and related materials were uploaded on the Supreme Court's website, and Justice Varma's judicial responsibilities were withdrawn. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court.
The petitioners contended that the internal inquiry mechanism laid down in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which mandates prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India before registration of an FIR against a sitting judge, is outdated and contrary to law. They sought reconsideration of this precedent, arguing that such internal mechanisms fail to deliver adequate penal consequences in cases involving grave misconduct. They further asserted that mere impeachment proceedings are insufficient, as they only result in civil consequences, and insisted that criminal prosecution must follow to uphold public confidence in the judiciary. The petition also sought a declaration that the recovery of cash itself constituted sufficient grounds for a cognizable offence, mandating police registration of an FIR.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan declined to entertain the petition, citing failure to exhaust alternative remedies. The Court noted, "There was an in-house inquiry report. It has been forwarded to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India. So follow the basic rule. If you are seeking a writ of mandamus, you have to first make a representation to those authorities before which the issue is pending."
The Court made it clear that in the absence of such a representation, the writ petition was not maintainable. Addressing the petitioner’s arguments on the Veeraswami precedent, the Court remarked, "We are not saying you cannot file. You don’t know the contents of the report. We also don’t know the contents of that report. You make a representation calling upon them to take action. If they don’t take action, then you can come here."
The bench also dismissed the prayer for declaration that the recovery of currency triggered a mandatory police action, reiterating that such an approach must be preceded by representations to the executive authorities entrusted with the matter.
The Apex Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, holding it to be premature and procedurally flawed. The bench advised the petitioners to first make appropriate representations to the President and Prime Minister, who are already in possession of the inquiry report and other materials. Only if such representations fail, the Court indicated, may judicial review be sought. Thus, the petition was rejected without granting any of the reliefs prayed for.
Picture Source :
