NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list for urgent hearing a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against the Allahabad High Court's Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, in connection with the alleged cash discovery row.
The advocate and petitioner, Mathews J Nedumpara, mentioned the matter before a two-judge bench of the apex court, seeking urgent hearing into the case.
The bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih -- taking note of the submissions of Nedumpara -- said that if defects are cured, then it can be listed for hearing on Tuesday. “It can be listed tomorrow if the defects (in the petition) are cured,” the CJI told him.
Earlier on May 14, the Supreme Court refused to list his plea for urgent hearing.
Nedumpara had moved the apex court seeking a direction from the top court for the registration of the FIR against the Allahabad High Court's Judge, Justice Varma.
Recently on May 8, following the indictment of Justice Varma in the cash discovery row by a Supreme Court-appointed in-house committee, the CJI Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) had on Thursday sent a letter to the Centre recommending his impeachment.
The former CJI decided to recommend Justice Varma’s name for impeachment -- after receiving the report from the in-house committee -- as Justivce Varma refused to quit the judgeship.
A senior official of the Top court -- on the condition of anonymity -- told TNIE that "Justice Varma is asked to resign, following his indictment, but he refuses."
Earlier, the former CJI, in terms of the in-house procedure, has written a letter to the President of India and the Prime Minister enclosing therewith the copy of the three-member Committee report of May 3, along with the letter/response of May 6, received from Justice Varma.
The three-judge inquiry committee appointed by the Supreme Court, which was probing the cash recovery at Justice Yashwant Varma’s house on March 14, has submitted a report to the CJI on May 4.
The CJI had asked Justice Varma to resign, following the indictment by the SC's three-member in-house committee.
The committee come to the conclusion of indicting Justice Varma after thoroughly analysing a series of evidence and recording the statements of over 45 people, including Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora and the Delhi Fire Service chief.
The allegation was vehemently denied by Justice Varma in his response to the Delhi High Court Chief Justice and to the apex court-appointed panel.
There was no reply from Justice Varma when TNIE contacted him for his response on the in-house probe panel.
After 40 days of setting up the panel by the top court, the committee submitted its report after conducting due diligence on the probe into the cash recovery issue.
The SC on March 25 constituted the three-member inquiry Committee, consisting of Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka.
The inquiry panel zeroed in on many questions to come to a conclusion. "These questions are; who is the owner of these huge cash? Who brings and keeps all these huge currency notes, if any, in the storehouse?" the source added.
The panel also went as to why the currency notes, if any, found in the storehouse not shown to the family members of Justice Varma, as has been stated by him? Where are the remains of the burnt currency/ cash notes, which are visible in the video as shared by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, with the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court?
Earlier, in his defence, Justice Varma has vehemently denied all the allegations levelled against him. He has claimed that the room which caught fire and where cash was allegedly found was an outhouse and not the main building where the judge and family resides.
"I state unequivocally that no cash was ever placed in that storeroom either by me or any of my family members and strongly denounce the suggestion that the alleged cash belonged to us. The very idea or suggestion that this cash was kept or stored by us is totally preposterous. The suggestion that one would store cash in an open, freely accessible and commonly used storeroom near the staff quarters or in an outhouse verges on the incredible and incredulous. It is a room which is completely disassociated from my living areas and a boundary wall demarcates my living area from that outhouse. I only wish that the media had conducted some enquiry before I came to be indicted and defamed in the press," Justice Varma said, in his reply, a copy accessed by TNIE.
