Shreya Gupta
On March 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a writ petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma. The petition was filed in connection with the alleged discovery of illicit cash at his official residence.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the matter was premature, as an in-house inquiry was already being conducted by a three-member committee, as per the Chief Justice of India’s direction. The bench emphasized that after the completion of the inquiry, multiple options would be available, including the possibility of the Chief Justice directing the registration of an FIR or referring the matter to Parliament.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Oka informed the petitioner, Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, that the petition was not yet ripe for consideration. He explained that the in-house inquiry must be concluded first and reiterated that all legal options would remain open thereafter. Nedumpara, however, questioned the judicial immunity extended to sitting judges and argued that the in-house committee was not a statutory authority. He cited a past case from Kerala where allegations under the POCSO Act were made against a sitting High Court judge, but no FIR was registered. According to him, investigating crimes should be the responsibility of the police rather than the judiciary.
Nedumpara also raised concerns about the handling of Justice Varma’s case, questioning why an FIR was not registered immediately upon the cash discovery on March 14, why no seizure mahazar (seizure record) was prepared, and why the matter was kept secret for a week. Justice Oka, however, maintained that judicial intervention at this stage was unnecessary and advised Nedumpara to educate the public on the Supreme Court’s judgments that establish the in-house procedure for such cases.
Despite Nedumpara’s plea for at least an admission of the petition, the bench refused to entertain it and dismissed the matter. Regarding the broader request to reconsider Supreme Court judgments such as K. veeraswami v. Union of India 1991 INSC 163 , which require prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India before filing criminal charges against sitting judges, the court decided that it was unnecessary to examine the issue at this stage. The bench, in its order, noted that since the in-house inquiry was ongoing, it would be inappropriate to intervene at this moment.
Justice Yashwant Varma came under scrutiny after reports emerged of a fire at his official residence’s storeroom on March 14, which allegedly led to the discovery of large amounts of cash. Following this, on March 21, the Chief Justice of India formed a three-member inquiry committee based on a recommendation from Delhi High Court Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay. Subsequently, on March 24, the Delhi High Court withdrew judicial work from Justice Varma, and the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court. Justice Varma has denied the allegations, asserting that he is a victim of a conspiracy.
The petition, filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, also challenges the K. Veeraswami judgment, arguing that it creates an exclusive class of judges who are effectively immune from criminal prosecution. It further contests the jurisdiction of the collegium to conduct the inquiry, asserting that the recovery of illicit cash should be treated as a cognizable offense under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, necessitating a police investigation. The petition also calls for the enactment of the long-pending Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, to address issues of judicial corruption.
Case Title: Mathews J Nedumpara and Ors. v. Supreme Court of India and Ors.
Case Number: Diary No. 15529-2025
Bench: Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com