The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the request for an immediate hearing on the demand to direct the registration of an FIR in the case of a large amount of cash allegedly found in the government residence of High Court judge Yashwant Verma in Delhi.
Four people, including lawyer Mathew J Nedupara, have filed a petition in the apex court demanding an order to the Delhi Police to register an FIR and investigate the case of cash found in the residence of Delhi High Court judge Verma.
Nedupara mentioned the petition before the bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna and demanded an immediate hearing on the matter. He said that this is an important issue related to wider public interest which needs immediate hearing.
The petitioner lawyer also praised the prompt action taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Justice Verma. But CJI Khanna asked Nedupara not to make public statements. It is known that the CJI has banned oral mentioning these days.
The matter will come up for hearing as per the prescribed procedure: CJI.
After Neduppara, another petitioner Manisha Mehta also requested the court for an immediate hearing on the matter, saying that if the same case would have happened with a common citizen, then various agencies like CBI and ED would have gone after that person. But the CJI was not impressed by the arguments and said that the matter will come up for hearing as per the prescribed procedure.
It is known that according to the current system, an FIR can be registered against a High Court or Supreme Court judge only with the prior permission of the CJI. Otherwise, the police or any investigating agency cannot directly register an FIR against a High Court and Supreme Court judge. This system was decided by the Supreme Court in 1991 in the decision given in the case of K. Veeraswamy.
This is a cognizable offense: Petitioner.
In the petition filed on behalf of Neduppara and three others, it has been said that in this case, a cognizable offense is made out under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the police are bound to register an FIR. In the petition, K. The order given in Veeraswamy's case has been challenged.
The petition demands that the order given in K. Veeraswamy's case of not registering an FIR against a High Court and Supreme Court judge without the prior permission of the CJI should also be cancelled. It is known that on March 14, the police received information about a fire in the government residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Verma in Delhi and when the fire brigade reached to extinguish the fire, a large amount of burnt notes were allegedly found there.
After seeing the report of the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and the reply of Justice Yashwant Verma in this case, CJI Sanjeev Khanna has formed a three-member committee of High Court judges to investigate the allegations against Justice Yashwant Verma. Apart from this, this is the first time that the Supreme Court has made public on the website all the documents, photos and reports related to the allegations against a judge.
India defeated West Indies by seven wickets in the second test played in Delhi. India achieved th
Apples, tourism, and now marble... know how friendship with Pakistan is costing Turkey heavily
Turkey, which is helping Pakistan by sending drones, is facing constant anger. Now Udaipur's marb
Saiyyaraa is ruling the box office like a king right now. The way Mohit Suri's Ahaan Pandey and A
There has been a major lapse in the security of the Parliament House once again. A person entered
The fifth and final match of the five-match Test series between India and England is being played
Whenever Ganesh Chaturthi comes, celebrations start not only in the houses of common people but a
TV's most popular reality show, "Bigg Boss 19," is becoming more interesting with each episode. W
New revelations are continuously emerging regarding the car bombing in front of the Red Fort (Del
In the glamorous film industry, stars do not have any fixed time for shooting. Some have to shoot
The troubles of stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, who is in trouble for making controversial stateme
