Justice yashwant varma case: The Supreme Court will hear on Friday (March 28, 2025) on the petition filed against Justice Yashwant Verma. The case is in the bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Ujjwal Bhuiyan. 4 petitioners from Mumbai have said that getting a large amount of money at the judge’s house is a criminal case. For this, instead of creating an investigation committee of 3 judges, other agencies including police should have asked for investigation.

The petition by lawyer Mathews Nedmara, Hemali Kurne, Rajesh Adrekar and Chartered Accountant Manisha Mehta has also opposed the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench’s decision in the 1991 case. It was said in that decision that the consent of the Chief Justice of India before the FIR against the High Court or Supreme Court judge is necessary. The petitioners have said that only the President and the governors have been exempted from the trial in the constitution. With its decision, the Supreme Court gave the judges separate special status from the common citizens.

Petitioners made them party

The petitioners have also made the party along with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, the Central Government, Delhi Police, Delhi Fire Department, ED, CBI and Income Tax Department. Apart from this, Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice GS Sandhavalia and Justice Anu Shivraman, members of the 3 -member inquiry committee constituted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have also been made side.

‘Treatment should be done like ordinary citizens with judges’

It has been said in the petition that the FIR should have been lodged immediately after receiving the burnt cash in the judge’s house on March 14 and the arrest should have been made but now the case has been handed over to the judges’ investigation committee, which is not correct. Just as an FIR is registered against common citizens in a criminal case, it should be done in this case as well. The Supreme Court cancels the comments made in the Veeraswami verdict of 1991 and register a case to the investigating agencies and ask them to investigate.

The petition claimed that due to giving separate status to the judges, he has survived the FIR even in serious cases like Poxo. These petitioners associated with an organization called National Liars Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms have reminded that Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill was introduced in Parliament in 2010 to investigate the corruption of judges and other wrong conduct, but that law could not be made.

Also read: ‘Justice Yashwant Verma will consider action on action’, meeting the collegium with High Court Bar Association

Justice Yashwant Varma Cash Recovery Case: Supreme Court Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna has assured to hear the petition seeking to register an FIR against Justice Yashwant Verma. The petitioners had demanded immediate hearing. On this, Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna said that the registry has fixed the date of hearing. You contact there.

The petition of 4 lawyers from Mumbai said that it is a criminal case to get a large amount of money at the judge’s house. For this, instead of forming an inquiry committee of 3 judges, other agencies including police should have asked for investigation. The petitioners requested the early hearing, saying, “If so much money had been met at a businessman’s house, then ED, income tax would have reached there by now.”

The petition of lawyers Matthews Nedumpra, Hemali Kurne, Rajesh Adrekar and Manisha Mehta also opposed the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the 1991 case. It was said in that decision that the consent of the Chief Justice of India is necessary before the FIR against the High Court or Supreme Court judge. The petitioners have said that only the President and the governors have been exempted from the trial in the constitution. With its decision, the Supreme Court gave the judges separate special status from the common citizens.

In the petition, along with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, the Central Government, Delhi Police, Delhi Fire Department, ED, CBI and Income Tax Department have also been made party. Apart from this, Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice GS Sandhavalia and Justice Anu Shivraman, members of the 3 -member inquiry committee constituted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court have also been made.

It has been said in the petition that the FIR should have been lodged immediately after receiving the burnt cash in the judge’s house on 14 March and the arrest should have been made, but now the case has been handed over to the judges’ inquiry committee, which is not correct. Just as an FIR is registered against common citizens in a criminal case, it should be done in this case as well. The Supreme Court cancels the comments made in the Veeraswami verdict of 1991 and register a case to the investigating agencies and ask them to investigate.

Also read:-
‘How much insensitivity, this decision was written after considering 4 months’, SC said on the judgment of Allahabad HC on rape

Justice yashwant varma: A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court to register an FIR against Justice Yashwant Verma. The petition of 4 lawyers from Mumbai said that it is a criminal case to get a large amount of money at the judge’s house. For this, instead of forming an inquiry committee of 3 judges, other agencies including police should have asked for investigation.

The petition of lawyers Matthews Nedumpra, Hemali Kurne, Rajesh Adrekar and Manisha Mehta also opposed the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the 1991 case. It was said in that decision that the consent of the Chief Justice of India is necessary before the FIR against the High Court or Supreme Court judge. The petitioners have said that only the President and the governors have been exempted from the trial in the constitution. With its decision, the Supreme Court gave the judges separate special status from the common citizens.

The petitioners have also made the party along with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, the Central Government, Delhi Police, Delhi Fire Department, ED, CBI and Income Tax Department. Apart from this, Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Anu Shivraman, members of the 3 -member inquiry committee constituted by Supreme Court Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna have also been made side.

It has been said in the petition that the FIR should have been lodged immediately after receiving the burnt cash in the judge’s house on 14 March and the arrest should have been made, but now the case has been handed over to the judges’ inquiry committee, which is not correct. Just as an FIR is registered against common citizens in a criminal case, it should be done in this case as well. The Supreme Court cancels the comments made in the Veeraswami verdict of 1991 and register a case to the investigating agencies and ask them to investigate.

The petition claimed that due to giving separate status to the judges, he has survived the FIR even in serious cases like Poxo. These petitioners associated with an organization called National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms have reminded that Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill was brought to Parliament in 2010 to investigate the corruption of judges and other wrong conduct, but that law could not be made.

Also read:-
Parliament Budget Session: ‘The throat roams around the throat by putting Ambedkar’s plank and the matter of changing the Constitution’, Rijiju recited in Parliament and said in Parliament, he said- Kharge said- not in mind