The Bench pointed out that, as per a press release issued by the Supreme Court on May 8, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had already forwarded the report of the in-house inquiry committee, along with the response of the concerned judge, to the President and Prime Minister.
NEW DELHI: On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court.
ALSO READ: Cash Discovery Row| SC to Hear Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma
The petition was based on alleged recovery of a large amount of partially burnt cash from Justice Varma’s official residence after a fire incident.
The Bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Court noted that the main grievance in the petition was that no action had been taken against Justice Varma despite allegations and an in-house inquiry.
The Court observed:
“Essentially the grievance is that in no action has been initiated against respondent no. 3 on the basis of allegations made against him and the basis of report of in house enquiry.”
The Bench pointed out that, as per a press release issued by the Supreme Court on May 8, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had already forwarded the report of the in-house inquiry committee, along with the response of the concerned judge, to the President and Prime Minister.
“Press release issued by this Court on 8th May records that CJI has forwarded the report of the in house inquiry committee along with the response of the third respondent to the President and Prime Minister.”
The Court ruled that before invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 to seek a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must first approach the appropriate authorities by filing a formal representation.
The Court added:
“Before the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus the petitioner will have to redressal of their grievance by filing representation before appropriate authorities. The petitioner has not done that therefore we decline to entertain the petition. At this stage we don’t find it necessary to look into the other prayers.”
During the brief hearing, the Bench pointed out that details of the in-house inquiry are available on the Supreme Court’s website. The judges advised Nedumpara to follow the correct legal procedure:
“Going by website there was in house enquiry. Just see the website. The report was forwarded to the President of India. Please follow basic rule for mandamus. We don’t know what is there in the report.”
Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara argued that a cognisable offence had been committed, and therefore the police were duty-bound to register an FIR. He contended:
“The perception is that there is bribe given and a bribe given. That’s a cognisable offence. Penal provisions are equal for everyone. If there is a judgement vs. a statute the statute will prevail.”
He sharply criticised the 1991 Veeraswami judgment, which requires prior sanction before prosecuting judges of the higher judiciary. He argued that this precedent has led to injustice:
“Veeraswami is a mischief. It’s a miscarriage of justice. It has to be revisited. All that 141 contemplates is law of the Supreme Court will apply as precedent. Judgement is not law of the land.”
He also stated:
“When Parliament enacts a law we are all virtually present. The record of Court is only binding between the parties. It will not bind anybody else.”
The judges reminded the petitioner once again of the correct legal procedure for filing a writ of mandamus:
“Please follow the basic law when it comes to writ of mandamus. Go to the authority, file a representation, then come under writ of mandamus.”
“We have seen your prayers.”
Persisting with his arguments, Nedumpara stressed that the incident involved a serious offence, and demanded greater transparency from the judiciary:
“The incident constitutes a cognisable offence. The police is duty bound to register an FIR. This is a gross violation of Article 14. There is a corresponding duty on the part of the Supreme Court to make the report public. I seek a declaration that Veeraswami is wrong. It prohibits the police from discharging its statutory duty.”
In conclusion, the Court stated:
“We have already seen your prayers.”
In March, the same petitioners had approached the Supreme Court to challenge the in-house inquiry and demand a formal police investigation.
However, the court dismissed their plea at that time as premature due to the ongoing internal proceedings. Now that the inquiry is complete, the petitioners argued that any delay in pursuing criminal action is no longer justifiable.
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.
In response, the Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) launched an internal investigation, forming a three-member committee on March 22nd to conduct an inquiry.
The Delhi Police Commissioner shared the video of the burnt cash with the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Supreme Court later released the video to the public. In an unusual move, the Supreme Court also published a report from the Delhi High Court Chief Justice concerning the incident, along with Justice Varma’s reply.
The Supreme Court Collegium’s decision to transfer Justice Varma amid this controversy faced significant opposition from lawyers’ associations in Uttar Pradesh. However, the Central government approved the transfer on March 28.
The Central Government announced the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court back to his original position at the Allahabad High Court.
This decision followed a recommendation from the Supreme Court Collegium made on March 24.
Additionally, The Supreme Court of India directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court not to assign any judicial responsibilities to Justice Yashwant Varma.
Case Name – Mathews J Nedumpara and Ors. v. Supreme Court of India and Ors.
