In the Justice Yashwant Varma row, lawyers have approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of the earlier ruling. They stated that “criminal law still not set in motion, bribe givers, bribe takers, fixers and brokers remain unscathed.”
New Delhi: Three lawyers, along with a Chartered Accountant, have approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of its August 7 ruling that dismissed their request for the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court.
This review petition, filed under Article 137 of the Constitution by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, argues that the Court made “errors apparent on the face of record” by rejecting their writ petition on technical grounds without considering its merits.
The petitioners assert that a fire at Justice Varma’s residence revealed serious offenses such as money laundering, bribery, and corruption. These concerns surfaced after the Delhi Police and the Commissioner of Police inspected the scene and informed the then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
They claim that, despite being aware of a cognizable offense, the police did not register an FIR due to the 1991 Constitution Bench ruling in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which mandates prior approval from the Chief Justice of India before filing an FIR against a sitting judge.
The petitioners argue that once the High Court Chief Justice was made aware of the alleged crime, he should have directed the police to file an FIR. Instead, the Chief Justice opted to publish images and videos of the burnt cash on the High Court’s website and formed a committee for inquiry.
Furthermore, the petition emphasizes that impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma cannot replace criminal accountability, as such proceedings are civil in nature and would only result in his removal from office, allowing him to retain pension and retirement benefits if he resigns before the process concludes.
The petitioners contend,
“Bribe givers, bribe takers, fixers and brokers all remain unscathed as the criminal law has not been set in motion,”
The review application also challenges the Court’s assertion that the petitioners failed to attach their representation to the Union government and Delhi Police, pointing to Annexure P-5 in their writ petition. They argue that the dismissal of their plea was unjust, leading to “manifest injustice,” and warrants reconsideration.
In a notable development related to the Justice Yashwant Varma “cash-at-home” scandal, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla announced on August 12 the formation of a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct against the Allahabad High Court judge.
The committee will be chaired by Justice Arvind Kumar, a sitting Supreme Court judge, with Chief Justice M. M. Shrivastava of the Madras High Court and senior advocate Vasudeva Acharya as members.
This marks the formal beginning of the constitutional process for the potential removal of a High Court judge, following an in-house inquiry committee’s recommendation for Justice Varma’s removal, citing his “active control” over the premises where significant amounts of cash were found in March 2025.
The Speaker noted he received a motion dated July 21, 2025, signed by 146 members from both ruling and opposition parties, including Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad and the Leader of the Opposition.
This motion seeks to submit a representation to the President of India for Justice Yashwant Varma’s removal, under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, in conjunction with Article 124(4) of the Constitution, as well as Articles 217 and 218.
Notably, the Apex Court had reserved its verdict on Justice Varma’s plea on July 30. During that hearing, the Court also reserved its decision in a separate plea from Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, who sought the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma.
Justice Datta questioned Nedumpara on whether he had approached the police prior to moving the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had previously declined to order an FIR, instructing petitioners to wait for the committee’s findings.
Despite the report allegedly being submitted and reportedly indicating Justice Varma’s involvement, no FIR was filed, prompting the current petition. The earlier petitioners were also advised to reach out to the President and Prime Minister.
Although representations were made, the plea states there has been no response or directive to investigate, despite the seriousness of the incident.
In May, the Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court of India refused to provide information in response to an RTI application seeking a copy of the in-house inquiry report against Justice Yashwant Varma, as well as the letter sent by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the Prime Minister and President of India.
On the evening of March 14th, a fire erupted at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence. While Justice Varma and his wife were traveling in Madhya Pradesh, his daughter and elderly mother were present when the fire broke out. Firefighters responding to the scene reportedly discovered a substantial amount of unaccounted cash.
A video subsequently emerged depicting bundles of currency engulfed in flames, sparking allegations of corruption against Justice Varma. He refuted these accusations, suggesting a conspiracy to discredit him.
Case Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Supreme Court of India & Ors.