The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the immunity granted to judges from immediate criminal prosecution.
The petition was filed by lawyers and concerned citizens, including Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, in view of the alleged recovery of Rs 15 crore cash from the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma on the night of March 14.
It requested the Apex Court to review the precedent set in K. Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991), mandating prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before registering an FIR against sitting judges.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the petition on the grounds that an in-house inquiry was already underway.
The top court of the country said that after the in-house inquiry was over, several options would be open.
In case the report indicated some wrongdoing on part of the judge, if required, the Chief Justice of India may either direct the registration of an FIR, or refer the matter to the Parliament, noted the Bench.
Terming the writ petition immature, the Apex Court said since the internal inquiry was going on, the plea could not be considered.
Appearing in person, Advocate Nedumpara referred to a case of the Kerala High Court, wherein a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual offences (POCSO) Act was alleged against a sitting judge of the Court.
He submitted that police had registered an FIR against the Judge and the investigation concluded.
Noting that he was not pointing fingers at the judge, Advocate Nedumpara said such an allegation could only be investigated by the police. It was not the job of the Court to probe such matters. The judges were experts in the domain of adjudication, he added.
The Bench asked Advocate Nedumpara to read both the two verdicts that laid down the procedure of in-house inquiry.
The petitioner said that he was asking from the perspective of a common man, why no FIR had been registered since March 14. Advocate Nedumpara further raised concerns about the non-seizure of the money and conflicting statements made by the fire department.
He further argued that the problem was that only lawyers would understand this and the common people would not.
The top court of the country said that there were established judicial precedents governing such cases.
If Advocate Nedumpara was representing the common man, somebody need to educate the common man also about the system and the options available after the submission of an internal inquiry report. Since the petitioner represented the common man, he should also take the responsibility to educate the common man, noted the Bench.
Nedumpara further argued that the Veeraswami judgment outlining the procedure for investigating sitting judges was inconsistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and should not override statutory provisions.
The Apex Court observed that there were already mechanisms in place to address such grievances and that the petition did not warrant interference at this stage.
The petition was filed against the CJI’s decision to initiate a three-judge in-house probe against Justice Varma, instead of a regular criminal investigation by the police.
It further challenged the Supreme Court judgment in K. Veeraswami vs Union of India, which held that a criminal case under Section 154 CrPC against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge could only be filed after consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The petition contended that while a majority of the judges worked with integrity, instances like the present one could not be skipped from the prescribed criminal procedure.
It said the petitioners, in all humility, believed that the consequence of the aforesaid direction, that no FIR shall be filed, was certainly not present in the minds of the judges. The said direction created a special class of privileged men/women, immune from the penal laws of the land.
Except for a minority, the judges were men and women of the greatest of erudition, integrity, learning and independence. Judges did not commit crimes. However, the incidents where judges were caught red-handed accepting money, as in the case of Justice Nirmal Yadav or in the recent case of Justice Varma, too, could not be denied.
The plea further said that the verdict in K. Veeraswami’s case, to the knowledge of the petitioners, stood in the way of an FIR being registered, even in a serious offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The petition further said that by appointing a a three-judge committee to conduct an in-house inquiry, instead of ordering the registration of an FIR, the Supreme Court Collegium had done a great disservice to the public interest, in the fair name and the reputation of the Apex Court, and the institution of judiciary, even if one believed in the version given by Justice Varma, which was ex facie absurd.
It said the reasoning in K Veeraswami case was opposed to the statutory duty of the police as laid down under the criminal legislation to lodge an FIR in the event of any information of an alleged cognisable offence.
The petition prayed for declaration that the alleged recovery of a huge sum of unaccounted money from the official residence of Justice Varma by the fire force/police when their services for sought to douse fire, constituted a cognisable offence punishable under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and that the police was duty bound to register an FIR in the case.
The plea sought to render per incuriam and sub silentio, the observations in paragraph 60 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami vs UOI prohibiting that no criminal case shall be registered against a judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India.
It requested the Apex Court to render as void ab initio, the constitution of the three-judge committee probing the alleged recovery of cash from the residence of Justice Varma.
The plea sought declaration that the Supreme Court Collegium had no jurisdiction to investigate the incident and that the resolution of the Collegium investing the Committee the power to conduct such an investigation was rendered void ab initio inasmuch as the Collegium could not confer jurisdiction upon itself to order so where the Parliament or the Constitution had conferred none.
It sought directions to the Delhi Police to register an FIR and initiate an effective and meaningful investigation into the incident.
The plea further sought directions to restrain any person or authority, even authorities as contemplated in K. Veeraswami’s case, from interfering with the sovereign policing function of the state in registering an FIR and investigating a crime.
The plea prayed for directions to the Government of India to take effective and meaningful action for curbing corruption across all levels of judiciary, including the enactment of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, which had lapsed.