Lagatar24 Desk
New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s dismissal of a plea seeking an FIR into the alleged recovery of burnt cash bundles from the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma has once again brought into focus the 1991 Constitution Bench ruling that virtually grants immunity from criminal prosecution to judges of constitutional courts—unless the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is consulted.
A bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka on Friday termed the plea “premature” and clarified that an in-house inquiry is underway, after which the CJI has multiple options based on the probe findings.
What the 1991 Veeraswami Verdict Says
The K. Veeraswami vs Union of India case established a vital protection for judges. The five-judge Constitution bench ruled that no FIR or criminal case can be initiated against a sitting Supreme Court or High Court judge or a Chief Justice of a High Court without the CJI’s prior consultation.
The verdict observed:
“No criminal case shall be registered… unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted. If the CJI finds the matter unfit for further action, the case shall not be registered.”
It also laid down that if the CJI himself is the subject of allegations, the government must consult another SC judge or judges.
In-House Procedure for Judicial Misconduct
While dealing with a 2014 sexual harassment case, the Supreme Court introduced a two-stage in-house procedure to assess allegations against judges.
• Stage 1 involves determining prima facie credibility of the complaint based on the judge’s response.
• If credible, the matter advances to Stage 2, wherein the CJI constitutes a three-member panel comprising two Chief Justices and a High Court judge to conduct a deeper probe.
The panel must follow principles of natural justice, ensuring fairness to both complainant and judge. Based on its findings, it may:
• Recommend no action,
• Suggest that the misconduct warrants advice, or
• Conclude that the conduct is serious enough to warrant impeachment proceedings.
If the misconduct is grave, the CJI may advise resignation or voluntary retirement, failing which, the CJI can bar the judge from judicial work and inform the President and PM, setting the stage for impeachment.
Why the FIR Plea Was Rejected
In the present case involving Justice Yashwant Varma, the top court emphasized that:
• The in-house procedure is already in motion.
• An FIR at this stage would violate judicial safeguards established under constitutional precedents.
This reassertion of judicial immunity has rekindled debate on accountability within the judiciary, especially amid public scrutiny of cases involving financial or ethical impropriety.
