Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara has raised serious concerns over judicial handling of the Indiabulls case, alleging that courts blocked investigations into fraud and financial irregularities, thereby undermining the foundational principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara shared a strongly worded statement on Twitter, alleging systemic failures in high-profile cases involving Justice Varma and Indiabulls. His remarks raise troubling questions about transparency, equal application of law, and the perception of justice in India’s higher judiciary.
According to Nedumpara, the Supreme Court dismissed his petition seeking an investigation into allegations that crores of rupees in burnt cash were recovered from the residence of Justice Varma.
He claims the Court rejected the petition on the ground that he failed to annex a prior representation seeking registration of an FIR, an assertion he categorically disputes, stating that the document was in fact annexed.
This, he argues, resulted in the shielding of a sitting judge from investigation, undermining public confidence in judicial impartiality.
Drawing a parallel, Nedumpara highlights what he describes as a strikingly similar approach adopted by the Bombay High Court in a case involving Indiabulls, where his client sought an investigation into alleged offences of:
- Fraud
- Cheating
- Money laundering
Despite submitting a detailed chart allegedly evidencing wrongdoing, the Court dismissed the plea, offering reasons which, according to Nedumpara, “defy common sense and reason.”
One of the major allegations concerns the artificial suppression of Indiabulls’ share prices, allegedly to enable insiders to buy shares at depressed values and later sell them at a profit.
Nedumpara notes that:
- The complaint was quashed out of turn
- The stated reason was that the complainant’s credentials were questionable
He argues this reasoning is legally untenable, emphasizing that law enforcement agencies are meant to investigate crimes, not judge the moral standing of complainants.
The controversy deepened when the Delhi High Court quashed the Enforcement Directorate’s ECIR, citing the fact that the underlying FIR had already been quashed by the Bombay High Court.
Nedumpara contends that this sequence of events effectively derailed the investigation into what he describes as a “humongous scam.”
He further alleges that the accused were represented by high-profile legal figures, including:
- The son of a then Chief Justice of India
- A former Attorney General of India
Though no impropriety is judicially established, Nedumpara suggests that the optics of such representation raise serious concerns about access and influence.
Another key issue raised involves alleged abuse of the SARFAESI Act, where Indiabulls is accused of selling property to a shell company or to itself, allegedly harming:
- Shree Ram Infrastructure Ltd
- Unsecured creditors, including Nedumpara’s client
The Bombay High Court reportedly dismissed this petition by relying on the dismissal of an entirely unrelated earlier complaint, a move Nedumpara characterizes as legally unsound.
Nedumpara also points out that in both Indiabulls matters, the cases were heard after being mentioned by lawyers representing the accused, and in one instance, before a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
While stopping short of direct allegations, he implies that such procedural developments contribute to a perception of institutional bias.
Concluding his statement, Nedumpara invokes the foundational legal principle:
“Justice should not only be done but must manifestly and seemingly be done.”
He suggests that this principle has been gravely undermined, leaving behind what he metaphorically describes as justice being “interred with its bones.”