DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Cash row: SC to hear plea seeking FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma

After an in-house inquiry panel indicted the judge, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had nudged Justice Varma to resign
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Justice Yashwant Varma
Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list for urgent hearing a plea seeking registration of an FIR against Allahabad High Court's Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash discovery row.

Advertisement

A Bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih took note of the submission of lawyer and petitioner Mathews Nedumpara, and said that if defects are cured then it can be listed for hearing Tuesday.

“It can be listed tomorrow if defects (in the petition) are cured,” the CJI said.

Advertisement

Nedumpara said he would remove defects, if any, from the petition and urged the Bench that it be listed on Wednesday as he is unavailable on Tuesday. The Bench agreed to list it on Wednesday provided defects are cured.

After an in-house inquiry panel indicted the judge, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had nudged Justice Varma to resign. The then CJI wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi after Justice Varma refused to resign.

Advertisement

The petition, filed by Nedumpara and three others, called for immediate initiation of criminal proceedings, saying the in-house committee found the allegations against Justice Varma to be prima facie true.

The plea emphasised that while the internal inquiry might lead to judicial disciplinary action, it was no substitute for a criminal investigation under the applicable statutes.

In March, the same petitioners had approached the apex court, challenging the in-house inquiry and demanding a formal police investigation.

However, the top court had then dismissed the plea as premature, citing the pending nature of the internal proceedings.

With the inquiry now concluded, the petitioners asserted that a delay in criminal action was no longer tenable.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Classifieds tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper