Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, May 21: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a plea seeking criminal proceedings against High Court judge Yashwant Varma, in connection with the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence in New Delhi.
A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the matter has already been forwarded to the president and Prime Minister of India following an in-house inquiry, and the petitioners must first seek redressal from the concerned constitutional authorities.
"Before seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioner will have to approach the appropriate authorities. At this stage, we decline to entertain the writ petition," the bench stated, according to The Indian Express.
Justice Oka added, "There was an in-house inquiry report. It has been forwarded to the President of India and the Prime Minister. Action now lies with them. Follow the basic rule—make a representation to the authorities before seeking judicial directions."
The plea, filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three others, had urged the apex court to direct the registration of an FIR and initiate criminal proceedings against Justice Varma, arguing that the in-house panel had found prima facie evidence supporting the allegations.
While the petitioners contended that an internal inquiry is no substitute for statutory criminal proceedings, the court maintained that constitutional protocol must be followed since the matter involves a sitting High Court judge.
Justice Varma, who was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court during the controversy, had reportedly refused to resign despite being nudged by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. Following this, Khanna is said to have written to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking further action.
This is the second time the petitioners approached the top court on the matter. A similar plea was dismissed in March on grounds that the in-house inquiry was still ongoing at the time. The current petition too was found premature, with the court stressing that only the President and Prime Minister are empowered to act at this juncture.