Nueva Delhi: The Government notified on Friday the transfer of Judge Yashwant Varma of the Superior Court of Delhi to the Superior Court of Allahabad in the midst of the investigation into the alleged discovery of cash at its official residence.
“In the exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of article 222 of the Constitution of India, the President, after consulting with the president of the Court of India, is pleased to transfer the judge of Shri Yashwant Varma, Judge, Judge, Superior Court of Delhi, to be a judge of the Superior Court of Allahabad and order him to assume the position of his office in the Superior Court of Allahabad.”
He Supreme Court College He had previously recommended his repatriation to his Superior Court of Parents after development.
Judge Varma was eliminated by the Superior Court of Delhi after a directive of the President of the Supreme Court of India (CJI). The controversy arose after a fire in its residence of Lutyens Delhi on March 14, after which the reports of burned cash bundles arose that are supposedly found in a warehouse. Judge Varma firmly denied the claims, stating that neither he nor his family had put money there.
The Supreme Court appointed an internal committee of three members on March 22 to investigate the matter, with the report of the President of the Supreme Court DK UPADHYAYA, including photos and videos, loaded on the website of the Court. Meanwhile, a Pil that sought a FIR in the matter was dismissed as premature, and the court said that internal investigation was ongoing and multiple options remained open to the CJI once it concluded.
SC refuses to entertain Pil to register Fir
The Supreme Court refused Friday to entertain a public interest dispute (PIL) that seeks the registration of a FIR with respect to the alleged cash recovery. Judges Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the problems posed by lawyer Mathews Nedumpara were premature, since an internal investigation is already underway. The bank explained that after the consultation report is presented, several options would be considered, including the direction of the registration of a FIR or referring the matter to Parliament.
The Supreme Court refused to intervene while internal investigation is ongoing. In his order, the bank indicated that the investigation is underway, and only after the committee present its report, the president of the Supreme Court will have several options, including the address of more actions.
The lawyer Nedumpara had argued that a FIR should have been registered and questioned why there was no arrests. The petition also challenged an earlier ruling of the Supreme Court in the K Veaswami case, which requires prior consultation with the president of the Supreme Court before presenting a criminal case against a acting judge.
