The Supreme Court, on May 21, dismissed a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three others seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma in relation to alleged recovery of illicit cash from his official residence.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the plea is not maintainable, as the petitioners had not first made a representation to the President of India or the Prime Minister. The bench noted that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had already forwarded the in-house inquiry report and Justice Varma’s response to both the President and the Prime Minister.
Read also: Vikas Singh Re-Elected as SCBA President for 2025-26; SC Reserves Key Posts for Women
“There was an in-house inquiry report. It has been forwarded to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India. So follow the basic rule. If you are seeking a writ of mandamus, you have to first make a representation to those authorities before which the issue is pending,” Justice Oka remarked during the hearing.
The Court emphasized that without approaching the constitutional authorities first, filing a writ of mandamus was premature.
“We are not saying you cannot file. You don’t know the contents of the report. We also don’t know the contents of that report. You make a representation… if they don’t take action, then you can come here,” Justice Oka advised the petitioners.
Nedumpara, appearing in person, argued that the 1991 Veeraswami judgment — which mandates prior approval from the CJI for registering FIRs against sitting judges — should be reconsidered. He also sought a declaration that recovery of cash from a judge’s office amounts to a cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
However, the bench declined to entertain these prayers at this stage.
This was the second petition filed by Nedumpara on the issue. His earlier plea in March had challenged the ongoing in-house inquiry and demanded a criminal probe, but the Court had dismissed it as premature.
In the current plea, petitioners questioned the effectiveness of impeachment, arguing that it results only in civil consequences, whereas penal action is necessary when a judge — entrusted with upholding justice — is accused of such grave misconduct. They demanded an investigation to find out who gave the alleged bribes, who gained from them, and which cases were compromised.
Read also: Supreme Court Issues Notice on Plea Challenging ED’s Powers Under Section 50 & 63 of PMLA
Justice Varma came under public scrutiny after a fire broke out at his official residence’s storeroom on March 14. This incident reportedly led to the recovery of large amounts of cash. Following this, the CJI constituted a three-member panel on March 21, after receiving a recommendation from Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay.
The Supreme Court later published the inquiry report, Justice Varma’s response, and related visuals on its website. Subsequently, on March 24, the Delhi High Court withdrew all judicial work from Justice Varma, and the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court — his parent court.
Justice Varma has denied all allegations, claiming he is the target of a conspiracy.
Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 534/2025
Case Title – Mathews J Nedumpara and Ors. v. Supreme Court of India and Ors.
