Supreme Court Says Action on Judge Cash Case Lies with President and PM
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma over alleged cash recovery from his residence, emphasizing that the matter is now under the jurisdiction of the President and Prime Minister following an in-house inquiry.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made it clear that the judiciary had completed its role by conducting an internal investigation into the matter. The court pointed out that the next step falls within the constitutional domain of the executive.
Judiciary Completes Its Role, Says SC
“The in-house inquiry has been completed and the report has been forwarded to the President and Prime Minister. If you are seeking a writ of mandamus, you must first make a representation to the concerned authorities,” said the bench while addressing advocate Mathews Nedumpara, who led the petition alongside other lawyers.
This statement underscores a fundamental principle in Indian administrative law: judicial remedies under writ jurisdiction must typically follow attempts to engage directly with the responsible authorities.
‘You Can Come Here If They Don’t Act’: SC to Petitioner
The court advised the petitioners to submit a formal representation to both the President and the Prime Minister, urging them to act on the in-house inquiry report. “You do not know the contents of the report. We also do not know the contents of that report. You make a representation before President and PM calling upon them to take action. If they don’t take action, you can come here,” Justice Oka stated.
Advocate Nedumpara argued that criminal law should apply equally to all, regardless of a person’s rank or position. “Judges should also be held accountable under the law if they are found guilty of wrongdoing,” he emphasized.
Challenge to Veeraswami Judgment Raised — But Not Entertained
During the proceedings, the petitioner also questioned the legality of the landmark K Veeraswami judgment, which mandates that no FIR can be registered against a sitting judge of the High Court or Supreme Court without the prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India. Nedumpara argued that this precedent places judges above the law and should be declared invalid.
However, the bench made it clear that such a constitutional challenge could not be entertained within the scope of the current petition. “We cannot examine the validity of a constitution bench judgment in these proceedings,” Justice Bhuyan said.
What Is the In-House Inquiry?
The in-house inquiry mechanism is an internal judicial procedure adopted by the Supreme Court to deal with allegations of misconduct against sitting judges. These proceedings are confidential and the reports are usually sent to the Chief Justice and relevant constitutional authorities for further action.
Though the contents of the report concerning Justice Yashwant Varma have not been made public, the court’s directive to approach the President and Prime Minister suggests that serious considerations may be involved.
Legal and Political Implications
This development raises significant questions about judicial accountability, the transparency of in-house inquiries, and the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive. It also reignites public discourse over whether current legal frameworks sufficiently address judicial misconduct.
Political observers note that the ball is now firmly in the Centre’s court. Any inaction could spark further legal action or public outcry, especially in a climate of growing demand for institutional transparency.