[BREAKING] Cash-Found Case| Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The petition, filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, argues that instead of transferring Justice Varma, a criminal case should be registered against him.

NEW DELHI: Today, 28th March, The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to hear a petition demanding the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma.

The petition was filed by advocates Mathews J Nedumpara and Hemali Suresh Kurne after reports surfaced that a large sum of cash was allegedly found at the judge’s residence on March 14

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the plea, emphasizing that an in-house committee set up by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna is already investigating the matter. The Court stated that if the committee finds any wrongdoing, legal action will follow accordingly.

ALSO READ: Allahabad HC Bar Associations on Justice Yashwant Varma’s Transfer: “Collegium Headed by CJI Khanna Listened Attentively, Will Consider Requests”

“The in-house inquiry is ongoing. If the report sees something wrong, FIR can be directed or matter can be referred to parliament. Today is not the time to consider it,”

the Bench remarked, making it clear that the judiciary follows a structured process in such cases.

During the hearing, advocate Nedumpara cited an example from Kerala where police hesitated to name a retired judge accused in a POCSO case.

“Please see what happened in Kerala. In a POCSO case, allegations were against a retired judge and police could not write the name of the accused. There was allegation. Police can only probe it. Courts cannot probe it,” he argued.

Responding to this, Justice Oka reaffirmed the importance of the in-house inquiry process.

“Please read both judgments laying down in-house inquiry process. After the process, all options are open,” he stated.

Nedumpara pressed further, questioning the delay in legal action and public disclosure of the case.

“The common man keeps asking why no FIR registered on March 14, why no FIR, no arrest, no seizure, no criminal law put into motion. Why a week to release the scandal. Why did the collegium not say it has the videos etc,” he contended.

However, the Bench maintained that an internal investigation is ongoing and judicial interference at this stage is unnecessary.

“We have seen the plea. These are questions raised. Now internal inquiry is ongoing. But we cannot interfere at this stage and then all options are open with the Chief Justice of India,” the Court stated.

Expressing concern about public perception, Nedumpara said, “Common man will not understand.”

In response, Justice Oka advised, “You must educate the common man about the Supreme Court judgments laying down the law.”

Given that an in-house committee is already examining the case, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition. The official order stated:

“Heard petitioner in person. As far as grievance regarding third respondent is concerned as can be seen from Supreme Court website the in-house inquiry proceedings are underway. After the report is submitted by the committee there will be several options open for the CJI. Therefore, at this stage not correct to entertain the plea at this stage. At this stage it is not needed to reconsider judgments of this court. Plea disposed of.”

Advocate Nedumpara has urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the 1991 Constitution Bench ruling in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which held that no criminal case could be registered against a High Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, or Supreme Court judge without prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

Challenging this precedent, the petition argues: “The directive preventing the filing of an FIR was likely not intended by the Hon’ble judges at the time. However, it effectively creates a privileged class of individuals immune from the penal laws of the land. While most judges are esteemed for their erudition, integrity, and independence, instances of judicial corruption—such as judges being caught red-handed accepting bribes—cannot be ignored. The Veeraswami ruling has, to the petitioners’ knowledge, even obstructed FIRs in cases involving POCSO offences.”

Additionally, the plea questions CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s decision to form a three-member committee on March 22 to investigate allegations against Justice Verma following the cash seizure.

Nedumpara contends that only the police have the authority to conduct such an inquiry: “The Collegium’s resolution granting investigatory powers to the committee is void ab initio, as the Collegium lacks constitutional or statutory authority to do so.”

According to media reports, a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s residence on the evening of March 14. This led to the accidental discovery of unaccounted cash. Justice Varma and his wife were not in Delhi at the time of the incident. His daughter and elderly mother were at home when the fire occurred.

ALSO READ: CJI Sanjiv Khanna Assures Bar Leaders to Consider Demand for Withdrawing Justice Yashwant Varma’s Transfer

Following this, allegations of corruption surfaced against Justice Varma. However, he has denied the claims, stating that it seems to be “a conspiracy to frame him.”

In-House Inquiry Initiated by the Chief Justice of India

After the allegations emerged, Chief Justice of India (CJI) initiated an in-house probe. On March 22, a three-member committee was formed to investigate the matter.

A video showing the recovery of burnt cash was reportedly shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner with the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court later uploaded this video on its website.

Additionally, the Supreme Court also made public the report submitted by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice regarding the incident. Justice Varma’s response to the allegations was also published alongside the report.

ALSO READ: [Breaking] Bar Association Presidents Meet Chief Justice of India Over Justice Yashwant Varma’s Transfer Issue

On March 22, CJI Khanna set up a three-member committee to conduct an internal inquiry into the allegations. He also decided to upload the inquiry report of Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyay on the Supreme Court website.

On March 24, the Supreme Court Collegium decided to transfer Justice Varma back to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court.

Justice Varma has denied all allegations, saying that “no cash was ever placed in the storeroom either by him or any of his family members.”

FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE