New Delhi: Can there be an FIR and an criminal case against the High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Verma that earlier this month was found to be unaccounted at his official residence? A 1991 judgment passed by the Supreme Court has said yes, but with warnings.
The court ruled that a judge of a superior court would not immune to prosecution for criminal offenses committed during the office’s tenure under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
However, it said that no criminal case will be registered under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (an FIR) against a judge unless the government “consult” the Chief Justice of India. “If the Chief Justice is of the opinion that this is not a fitted case to proceed under the Act, the case will not be registered,” the decision says.
Show full article
In addition, a similar consultation is to be organized in the stage of approval for prosecution. It states that when the President needs to give such approval for prosecution, he should only do so on the advice of CJI.
In the case of Justice Verma, the Delhi Police Commissioner shared pictures and videos of cash allegedly found in his official residence store room with the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court on WhatsApp. But an FIR can only be registered against him when the government works with the CJI on the issue. None of the documents published by the Supreme Court yet indicates whether such consultation was sought to register a criminal case against Justice Verma.
In this 1991 case, a former Chief Justice of a High Court. A complaint was made for the CBI against Veerwamy, after which a case was registered against him in 1976 under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 a month before his retirement.
A Chargesheet was also filed In 1977, before a special judge, against him, accusing him of inconsistent assertion.
In his petition before the Supreme Court, Veerwamy presented that the provisions of the 1947 law do not apply to the judge of a superior court. He argued that for such prosecution, the removal of a public servant requires the previous approval of the competent authority, and the power to remove a judge is not contained in a single authority, but in two houses of Parliament.
However, the apex court ruled that the President of India is a competent authority to give a previous approval for the prosecution of a judge of a better court. This approval, it was said, to protect the judge from unnecessary harassment, to protect from trivial prosecution, and to protect the judge from “biased prosecution” in a case that goes on a good reason against the government or its officials.
The court further ruled that any criminal case would not be registered against a High Court Judge or Chief Justice, or Supreme Court Judge, “unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the case”.
5-The majority verdict given by the bench of the judge said, “The government should be payable for the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice. If the Chief Justice’s opinion is that it is not a fit case to proceed under the Act, the case will not be registered,” the decision of the majority given by the bench of the 5-judge made the CJI’s opinion.
The verdict also observed whether criminal proceedings against a judge against Parliament could be initiated, before calling a High Court judge under Article 124 of the Constitution, which states that a judge could be removed only through a resolution with two-thirds support through a proposal in Parliament. It states that criminal proceedings against a public servant can be initiated against a public servant before abolishing disciplinary proceedings against him, prosecution for criminal misconduct before the removal of a judge by Parliament.
At the time when the decision was passed in July 1991, the in-house process was not applicable to deal with the allegations against the judges, and therefore did not touch the process that it has now been started against Justice Verma. Adopted in 1999, the in-house inquiry allows the establishment of an inquiry committee to investigate the allegations against a judge.
‘A judge is a public servant’
In the 1991 judgment, Justice BC Ray’s opinion said that a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court comes within the definition of “public servant” under the provisions of prevention of the Corruption Act 1947, and is responsible for prosecuting under this law.
He said, “A judge will be liable to commit criminal misconduct … if he is incompatible for his known resources or property known sources of income in his possession, for which he cannot account for a satisfactory manner,” he said.
In order to adequately protect a judge from trivial prosecution and unnecessary harassment, the President needs to consult the Chief Justice of India, who will then consider all the content put in front of him and tender his advice to the President to approve the prosecution.
Justice Ray saw, “The President will act as per the advice given by the Chief Justice of India.”
In fact, he said that if the CJI said that it is not a fit case to approve the judge’s prosecution, the President can “not approve” -can make an advice of a binding.
He highlighted the need for such a method with approval in cases of serious allegations of corruption and approved in cases of occupation of incompatible assets, given, “Given,” Otherwise, it will create a serious inroad on dignity, respect and reliability and integrity of the high office, which is an estimated judge estimated, which is in the dignity of the judges. “
Concurrent Rai by Justice KJ Shetty and MN Venkatcalia also said that judges are responsible for dealing like another person while talking about criminal offenses.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)