The principle that no one is above the law is a fundamental cornerstone of India’s Constitution. However, a legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) has effectively shielded High Court and Supreme Court judges from immediate criminal prosecution. This ruling mandates that no FIR can be registered against a judge without prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India, a decision that critics argue has created an unchecked sphere of judicial privilege.
The controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma has reignited the debate on judicial accountability. Despite reports of large amounts of currency notes being set ablaze, no FIR has been lodged to date. The incident, which initially involved the recovery of burnt cash, has since been shrouded in conflicting statements and apparent attempts to suppress information. The Supreme Court’s decision to release a report from the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court—alongside Justice Varma’s explanation and footage of the fire department extinguishing the flames—has done little to quell public skepticism.
Unanswered Questions and Allegations of Cover-Up
Several pressing concerns remain unresolved:
- Why was no FIR filed immediately after the incident on March 14?
- Why have there been no arrests, and why was the recovered money not officially documented?
- Why did it take nearly a week for the incident to become public knowledge?
- Why did key officials, including the fire department chief, initially deny the cash recovery, only to later contradict themselves?
- Why did Justice Varma not report the matter to the police or demand an investigation into an alleged conspiracy against him?
Justice Varma has denied any connection to the burnt cash and claims ignorance regarding its source. However, critics argue that if he were truly uninvolved, he should have immediately reported the matter and called for a police inquiry. The lack of immediate legal action has only fueled speculation that powerful forces are working to prevent accountability.
Judicial Immunity vs. Public Trust
The Supreme Court collegium’s decision to conduct an internal inquiry rather than direct the filing of an FIR has raised serious concerns about judicial transparency. Critics warn that failure to initiate a formal investigation undermines not only public confidence in the judiciary but also the very principles of the rule of law.
Legal experts and public watchdogs assert that if Justice Varma is guilty of amassing illicit wealth, mere impeachment will not be sufficient—criminal prosecution must follow. The judiciary’s credibility hinges on ensuring that no one, regardless of position, remains beyond the reach of the law.
