The principle of equality before the law is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution. No individual, regardless of position or prestige, is above the law. While the Constitution grants limited privileges to the President and Governors, as they represent “We, the People of India,” the judiciary is expected to uphold the rule of law impartially.
However, a controversial precedent set by the Supreme Court’s five-judge constitutional bench in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991 SCR (3) 189) requires prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India before filing an FIR against a High Court or Supreme Court judge. This ruling, given per incuriam (in disregard of legal provisions), contradicts established legal principles and has created a shield of immunity around judges, effectively barring law enforcement from carrying out criminal investigations against them.
The impact of this ruling is evident in cases such as those involving Justice Nirmal Yadav and, more recently, Justice Yashwant Verma. Despite allegations and substantial evidence, including the discovery of large amounts of cash, no FIR has been filed against Justice Verma in connection with the “Burnt Notes” scandal. This raises serious questions about judicial accountability and transparency.
Key Unanswered Questions in the Justice Verma Case
- Why was no FIR registered on the day of the incident, March 14?
- Why has there been no arrest, and why has the seized cash not been officially recorded?
- Why did it take a week for the public to learn about this incident?
- If government agencies possessed video evidence of the incident, why did the Supreme Court and its Collegium not disclose the case immediately?
- Why did the Fire Department chief initially deny the cash recovery and later change his statement?
Justice Verma has denied ownership of the recovered money, claiming he was unaware of its presence. If this is true, why did he not report the matter to the police? Why has he not filed an FIR for attempted defamation or conspiracy? Why did he not inform the Delhi High Court Chief Justice or the Chief Justice of India about the incident?
The absence of an FIR, despite such serious allegations, strongly suggests an attempt to suppress the case. Even if Justice Verma’s explanation is accepted, a formal investigation is necessary to uncover the full scope of the incident. The Supreme Court Collegium’s decision to form an internal committee instead of directing an FIR weakens judicial accountability and public trust.
This case is not just about one judge—it is a test of India’s commitment to upholding the rule of law. If Justice Verma is found guilty of financial misconduct, legal proceedings must be initiated against him. Impeachment alone is insufficient; criminal prosecution is essential to preserve the credibility of the judiciary.
Leave a Reply