FIR Demanded In 'Burnt Notes' Scandal Involving Justice

Burnt Notes: The principle of equality before the law is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that no individual, regardless of status or position, is above the law. However, a controversial Supreme Court ruling in the K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) case created an exception by mandating that criminal proceedings against High Court and Supreme Court judges require prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

This decision, criticized as per incuriam (inconsistent with established legal principles), has effectively shielded judges from criminal accountability, undermining the fundamental legal mandate that police must register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offense. While the judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate disputes, law enforcement agencies hold the exclusive power to investigate and prosecute crimes. Even the Privy Council has affirmed that judicial intervention in police investigations is unwarranted as long as they operate within the bounds of the law.

Calls for FIR in Justice Verma’s Case

The long-standing concerns over judicial immunity have resurfaced with allegations against Justice Yashwant Verma, whose name has emerged in the ‘Burnt Notes’ scandal. Despite mounting evidence, including video footage showing stacks of burnt currency, no FIR has been filed yet, raising serious questions about the delay in action. The lack of an immediate legal response has led to public skepticism, with allegations of an attempted cover-up.

While the Supreme Court recently released a report from the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and Justice Verma’s official statement, many critical questions remain unanswered:

Why was an FIR not filed on March 14, the day of the incident?
Why has there been no arrest or official documentation of the seized money?
Why did it take a week for the public to be informed of this case?
Despite government agencies having access to video evidence, why did the Supreme Court and its collegium delay making the case public?
Why did the fire department initially deny the discovery of cash and later change its stance?

Justice Verma’s Defense and Lingering Doubts

Justice Verma has denied ownership of the burnt cash and claimed he was unaware of its presence. If his statement holds true, why did he not immediately report the matter to the police or file an FIR against those allegedly conspiring against him? Additionally, why did he fail to inform the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and the Chief Justice of India?

The circumstances strongly suggest a case of illicit wealth, potentially linked to judicial corruption. Even if Justice Verma’s defense is taken at face value, the absence of an FIR has raised serious concerns. A belated investigation is still necessary to ensure accountability and expose the full extent of any wrongdoing.

Judicial Independence vs. Transparency

The Supreme Court collegium’s decision to form an internal committee rather than ordering an FIR has sparked criticism. Such a move risks damaging the judiciary’s credibility, eroding public trust, and even casting doubt on Justice Verma’s own claims. Failure to uphold transparency and accountability could set a dangerous precedent.

Legal experts and civil society members argue that if Justice Verma is found guilty of financial misconduct, mere impeachment will not suffice—criminal prosecution must follow. The rule of law demands strict action to uphold the integrity of India’s judicial system.