Historically, the Cash Discovery was made.
On the evening of March 14, 2025, a fire broke out outside the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, which was located in the central business district of New Delhi. As the firefighting teams worked to extinguish the fires, they discovered numerous bags that contained cash notes that had been partially burned and were stashed in a room that was next to the staff quarters.
Reports indicated that a significant amount of money was retrieved from the location, although the precise amount has not yet been confirmed. It was reported that a video that supposedly showed bundles of cash being consumed by flames was shared on the internet, which increased public curiosity over the origin of the monies and their intended use.
In light of the shocking images and the fact that a sitting judge was involved, there have been urgent calls for a formal inquiry into the incident to be conducted by the police.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )
In-House Investigation and the Results of It
In the wake of the fire and the subsequent controversy, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna took the unprecedented step of forming an in-house committee consisting of three individuals on March 22. Members of the group included prominent judges from a variety of high courts, including Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court.
The committee was tasked with conducting a comprehensive investigation, during which they investigated the circumstances surrounding the fire, the handling of the cash, and the possible relation that Justice Varma had to the money that was found.
Following the submission of the committee’s findings at the beginning of May, it was sent to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 8. Additionally, Justice Varma’s thorough response, in which he denied any misconduct, was also included in the package.
Both the plea and the hearing before the Supreme Court
A group of petitioners, led by counsel Mathews J. Nedumpara, sought the Supreme Court in an effort to get a writ of mandamus in order to compel the registration of a First Information Report against Justice Varma. This was done in spite of the fact that the in-house process had already been completed.
Upon discovering the cash, the petition contended that the police should have immediately opened a criminal case. Additionally, the petition argued that an internal judicial investigation was insufficient to address the seriousness of the charges.
During the hearing that took place on May 21 before a bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, the petitioners requested the court to take prompt action in order to preserve evidence and retain public trust in the judicial government.
The Bench’s Observations and the Legal Argumentation
Despite the fact that the in-house investigation was still ongoing, the bench of the Supreme Court decided not to accept the plea. They emphasized that it would be premature to exercise the Court’s writ jurisdiction at this time.
The petitioners were reminded by Justice Oka of the procedural requirement that, in order to file a mandamus petition, they must first make a submission to the authorities who were now hearing the matter. With reference to the news release issued on May 8th, the bench made the observation that the result of the investigation had already been delivered to the President and the Prime Minister.
These individuals were vested with the constitutional authority to take additional actions, such as directing a police investigation or commencing impeachment proceedings. The Court emphasized that interference from outside sources in continuous internal procedures could compromise the independence of the judiciary and disturb the established protocols for dealing with claims against judges who are currently serving in their positions.
the implications for the accountability of the judiciary
The decision made by the highest court in the land brings into stark relief the conflict that exists between the autonomy of the judiciary and the need for transparency. There is a mechanism for self-scrutiny within the court system that is provided by in-house inquiries. The purpose of these inquiries is to safeguard judges from accusations that are insignificant or politically motivated.
Critics, on the other hand, contend that these procedures do not possess the same level of transparency and investigative rigor as genuine police investigations. The idea that judges are not immune to scrutiny was emphasized by the Supreme Court through its decision to defer to the in-house committee and the constitutional office-holders.
The Court emphasized that judges must first be reviewed through the institutional framework that was formed specifically for this purpose. The decision underscores that aggrieved parties have the opportunity to pursue other avenues, such as criminal complaints or parliamentary impeachment, once the in-house procedure has been completed. This helps to maintain accountability while also protecting the judiciary from undue pressure from the outside world.
Reactions from the Public and Politicians
The announcement that the court will not be considering the FIR plea was met with a range of reactions. Activists from civil society and some legal pundits have expressed their disapproval of the decision, seeing it as a squandered opportunity to establish an unbiased investigation headed by the police into serious charges of corruption.
Concerns were raised by them over the possibility that the in-house procedure, which was carried out behind closed doors, could not be able to meet the public’s aspirations for transparency and prompt justice.
On the other hand, a significant number of members of the legal community defended the decision, claiming that the sanctity of the judiciary must be protected against direct attacks from the outside world and that the internal investigation was the necessary first step.
Political leaders, including representatives from opposition parties, have urged the executive branch to evaluate the findings of the committee and take decisive action. Meanwhile, sources inside the government have suggested that they will wait for the guidance of the President before deciding on any additional measures to take.
Planning for the Future and the Potential Outcomes
Now that the report of the internal committee has been delivered to the President and the Prime Minister, there are a number of different possibilities that could play out in the future. The constitutional framework gives the President the authority to direct the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) or to send the matter to Parliament for impeachment proceedings in accordance with Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
This authority is granted on the advise of the executive branch. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that reports indicate that Chief Justice Khanna has suggested commencing impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma. In order to carry out such a move, a vote that is approved by a special majority in both houses of Parliament is required.
An further possibility is that the executive branch might request that the Delhi Police register a case, which would then result in a comprehensive criminal inquiry. The decision between these two courses of action will put the robustness of India’s institutions to the test when it comes to dealing with sensitive claims involving members of the Supreme Court.
The fragile relationship that exists between judicial independence and accountability is brought to light by the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the First Information Report (FIR) petition that was filed against Justice Yashwant Varma.
This decision was based on respect for the ongoing in-house investigation and constitutional procedure. People all throughout the country are keeping a careful eye on the in-house report as it makes its way to the highest offices in the land.
Will a criminal inquiry be initiated by the President and Prime Minister, or will Parliament be asked to discuss impeachment of the President? The ultimate outcome of this case would provide a significant precedent for the manner in which India’s democracy strikes a compromise between the necessity to protect the judiciary from demands from the outside world and the requirement to ensure that its judges strictly adhere to the highest ethical standards.
