×

Supreme Court to Hear Urgent Plea Against Allahabad High Court Judge Over Cash Discovery

The Supreme Court of India is poised to hear an urgent plea regarding the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, linked to a cash discovery case. The petitioners argue that the internal inquiry findings warrant immediate criminal proceedings. This follows a previous dismissal of their plea as premature. With the inquiry concluded, they assert that any delay in criminal action is no longer acceptable. Stay tuned for updates on this significant legal development.
 

Supreme Court Agrees to Urgent Hearing


On Monday, the Supreme Court of India agreed to expedite a hearing regarding a petition that seeks to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, linked to a cash discovery incident.


A bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih acknowledged the request made by lawyer Mathews Nedumpara, indicating that the case could be scheduled for hearing on Tuesday if the petition's defects are rectified.


The Chief Justice remarked, "It can be listed tomorrow if defects (in the petition) are cured."


Nedumpara expressed his intention to address any issues in the petition and requested that the hearing be postponed to Wednesday due to his unavailability on Tuesday. The bench consented to this arrangement, contingent upon the rectification of defects.


Following an internal inquiry that found the judge culpable, former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna had urged Justice Varma to resign. After Varma declined to step down, Khanna communicated with President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi regarding the matter.


The petition, submitted by Nedumpara and three co-petitioners, calls for immediate criminal proceedings, asserting that the internal committee's findings against Justice Varma were prima facie valid.


The petition highlighted that while the internal inquiry could lead to disciplinary measures, it does not replace the need for a criminal investigation under relevant laws.


Earlier in March, the same petitioners had approached the Supreme Court, contesting the internal inquiry and requesting a formal police investigation. However, the court dismissed their plea as premature, citing ongoing internal proceedings.


With the inquiry now complete, the petitioners argue that any further delay in pursuing criminal action is unjustifiable.