Opinion Justice Yashwant Varma case: In-house inquiry is not immunity

The inquiry under the 1968 Act is, however, not relevant for assigning criminal liability if the proven misbehaviour also falls within the definition of a crime. In this case, no FIR has been registered so far. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, while addressing the Times Now Summit 2025, stated that without the permission of the Chief Justice of India, in the matter relating to the discovery of burnt currency notes from the residence of the judge, no FIR can be registered — nothing can be seized in the absence of an FIR.

In light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991), sitting judges of high courts and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution, including the registration of an FIR, without prior consultation with the CJI. This is necessary to protect the judges from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment. The CJI must assess the veracity of the allegations against a sitting judge, to advise the President on the need for an FIR. The in-house inquiry is essentially meant for this purpose.

By no stretch of the imagination can the law laid down in Veeraswami be a tool to protect a judge from criminal liability. Our criminal law is competent enough to take necessary care of every eventuality. The discovery of the burnt money from the house of a sitting judge potentially constitutes several offences under various laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Income Tax Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The offences under all the above enactments are serious and mostly cognisable.

With respect to the March 14 incident, according to media reports, the firefighters first informed the police, including the Delhi Police commissioner. The police team reached the spot, and upon arrival, some photographs were taken and a video was recorded. However, the police did not register any case despite being under the obligation to do so under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This could have been done without naming the judge and without including him in the list of the accused. According to Section 173 of the BNSS, the police, on reaching the scene of the crime, should have secured the area to prevent tampering, destruction or contamination of evidence. As per Section 175, the officer conducting the investigation should have recorded observations regarding the physical evidence available and also drawn a site plan or sketch with photographs and videos. Under Section 176 of the BNSS, the police officers should also have collected physical and digital evidence and should have preserved the same for the use of forensic experts.

The police had the duty to protect the crime scene and preserve evidence to ensure a fair trial, as and when that takes place. Adherence to this procedure is fundamental to our criminal jurisprudence and to maintaining public confidence in our justice system. In this case, though certain photographs were taken and a video was recorded, no further care appears to have been taken to protect the scene of the crime and the relevant evidence. The burnt currency wasn’t seized immediately and debris was reportedly removed by unknown persons. These are serious breaches.

The registration of a case was necessary for an effective investigation. The law laid down in Veeraswami and other Supreme Court guidelines do not restrict the police from taking these necessary measures and registering a criminal case. The failure of the police to take all these measures has caused significant damage to the investigation. It is also strange that no criminal case has been registered even after the submission of a report by a panel of judges holding the judge concerned guilty.

The writer is former Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court