MPs question absence of FIR in cash-at-judge’s house case

Parliamentarians cutting across party lines on Tuesday demanded a code of ethics for higher judiciary and asked why no FIR had been registered in the cash-at-judge’s house case despite recovery of burnt wads of currency notes.

The MPs raised these issues at a briefing of the Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice by Secretary, Justice Department on “Judicial processes and reforms”.

The briefing covered two subjects — code of conduct for the judges of higher judiciary and judges taking up post-retirement assignments.

Sources said the dominant concern at the meeting was the absence of an FIR in the matter pertaining to recovery of cash from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court , who was later transferred to the Allahabad HC.

Many MPs red flagged a missing FIR despite incriminating evidence and asked why the process of removal of the judge had not been initiated even after the in-house probe panel, appointed by the Chief Justice of India, recommended the removal of Justice Varma. This recommendation was based on the panel’s conclusion that “bundles of cash” were indeed recovered from the storeroom of his official residence in Delhi and later removed under suspicious circumstances.

The legislators asked the government to draft a comprehensive bill addressing ethical issues involving higher judiciary. They said there should be a cooling off period of five years for judges to be appointed post-retirement. Some MPs also said retired judges should not be nominated as MPs. Incidentally, former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, a member of the parliamentary panel, was absent on Tuesday.

The present legal position on FIRs in matters involving the judiciary is that the police can’t register an FIR against a sitting HC or SC judge on their own in view of the Supreme Court’s direction in K Veeraswami versus Union of India (1991), in which it was held that such a criminal case can only be filed after consulting the CJI.

“No criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 of the CrPC against a High Court Judge or Chief Justice or a Supreme Court Judge, unless the CJI is consulted in the matter,” the top court had ruled.

The Delhi Police could have, however, lodged an FIR without naming anybody and later approached the CJI for his permission, if they wanted to name Justice Varma as an accused in the case.

As far as post retirement appointments of judges go, a slew of existing laws in India prescribe that only a retired judge of the SC or of a HC can be appointed as chairperson and member of a tribunal.

There are several commissions and tribunals such as the NHRC, state human rights commissions, National and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, Central Administrative Tribunal, Armed Forces Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, in which retired judges are required to be appointed as chairpersons and members.

As regards code of conduct for judges, India has no standalone code. The SC in its full court meeting on May 7, 1997, had adopted two Resolutions — The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, which lays down certain judicial standards and principles to be observed and followed by the SC and high court Judges; and “In-house procedure” for taking suitable remedial action against judges, who do not follow universally accepted values of judicial life, including those included in the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’.

As per the established “In-house procedure’ for the higher judiciary, the CJI is competent to receive complaints against the conduct of SC Judges and the Chief Justices of the HCs. Similarly, the HC Chief Justices are competent to receive complaints against the conduct of HC Judges.

Top News