Action Has To Be Taken By...': SC Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma
Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi after Justice Varma, who was transferred from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court amid the row.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against High Court judge Yashwant Varma in connection with the discovery of cash from his official residence in New Delhi.
A bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, said in a statement that the Chief Justice of India forwarded the report of the in-house enquiry committee along with the judge's response to the President and Prime Minister of India.
"Before seeking the writ of mandamus, the petitioner will have to seek redressal of their grievance by filing representation before the appropriate authorities. Therefore, we decline to entertain this writ petition. At this stage it is not necessary to look into the other prayers," the bench said.
“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. Action has to be taken by the President and the Prime Minister,” Justice Oka said, according to The Indian Express.
After an in-house inquiry panel indicted Varma, former CJI Sanjiv Khanna nudged him to resign.
The apex court was not inclined to consider the submissions in the plea as the court believed that the matter had already been initiated as per the official procedure.
Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi after Justice Varma, who was transferred from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court amid the row, refused to resign.
The petition, filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three others, called for the immediate initiation of criminal proceedings, saying the in-house committee found the allegations against the judge prima facie true.
The plea stated that while the internal inquiry might lead to judicial action, it was no substitute for a criminal investigation under the applicable statutes.
In March, the same petitioners moved the apex court, challenging the in-house inquiry and demanding a formal police investigation. The apex court had dismissed the plea as premature, citing the pending nature of the internal proceedings.
Top Headlines
