The Supreme Court of India, on March 28, dismissed a writ petition that sought the registration of an FIR against former Delhi High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, over alleged illicit cash discovery at his official residence. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, stated that the petition was premature, as an in-house inquiry was already underway.
At the outset, Justice Oka addressed the petitioner, Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, emphasizing that the judicial process should be allowed to take its course:
"Mr. Nedumpara, we have seen the prayers. After the in-house inquiry is over, several options are open. The Chief Justice of India can direct the registration of an FIR or refer the matter to Parliament after examining the report. Today it is not the time to consider this petition. After the in-house report, all options are open. The petition is premature."
Read Also:- Bar Associations Demand Criminal Investigation Against Justice Yashwant Varma Amidst Cash Row Controversy
Advocate Nedumpara, in his arguments, raised concerns about shielding judges from standard criminal investigations. He cited a case in Kerala where an FIR was not registered against a then-sitting High Court judge despite allegations under the POCSO Act. He emphasized that the investigation should be handled by law enforcement, not an internal judicial panel, stating:
"The in-house committee is not a statutory authority and cannot be a substitute for criminal investigations undertaken by specialized agencies."
He further questioned why no immediate action was taken when the cash was discovered on March 14, why a seizure mahazar was not prepared, and why the information was withheld for a week.
Read Also:- Justice Yashwant Varma Transferred to Allahabad HC Amid In-House Inquiry Over Cash Controversy
However, Justice Oka reiterated that the court could not interfere at this stage, stating:
"Today, we cannot interfere at this stage. Let the in-house procedure be over, and after that, all options are open to the Chief Justice of India."
When the petitioner insisted that the common man was concerned about the judiciary's approach, the bench responded by urging him to educate the public about the Supreme Court’s past judgments on in-house procedures.
Supreme Court’s Order
The bench ultimately refused to admit the petition, dismissing it while also declining to consider a broader prayer challenging judicial precedents like K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which requires prior consultation with the Chief Justice before initiating criminal proceedings against a judge. The court ruled:
"As far as the grievance regarding the third respondent (Justice Varma) is concerned, as can be seen from the website of the Supreme Court, an in-house procedure is going on. Several options will be open for the Chief Justice of India after the conclusion of the inquiry. Therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to entertain this writ petition."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Seeks FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma, Challenges Internal Inquiry
The petition was disposed of, with the court deeming it unnecessary to deliberate on revising the existing legal framework at this juncture.
Background of the Case
The case against Justice Yashwant Varma stems from an incident on March 14, when a fire at his official residence led to the discovery of substantial cash amounts. Following this, the Chief Justice of India formed a three-member committee on March 21 to investigate the matter, based on a report by Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay.
On March 24, the Delhi High Court withdrew Justice Varma’s judicial responsibilities, and the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court. Justice Varma has denied all allegations, asserting that he is a victim of a conspiracy.
The petition also sought to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, arguing that it unfairly grants judges immunity from criminal prosecution. Additionally, it questioned the jurisdiction of the inquiry committee, stating that the collegium lacks the authority to conduct such investigations.
The plea urged the Supreme Court to declare that the recovery of cash constituted a cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, necessitating a police probe. It also called for the enactment of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the judiciary.
Case no. – Diary No. 15529-2025
Case Title – Mathews J Nedumpara and Ors. v. Supreme Court of India and Ors.
