Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) dismissed a writ petition filed by a few advocates seeking registration of FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma pursuant to the in-house inquiry into the allegations of recovery of illicit cash currencies from his official residence.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the Chief Justice of India has already forwarded the report of the in-house inquiry committee, along with the response of Justice Varma, to the President and the Prime Minister.

Since the petitioners have not filed a representation before the President and the Prime Minister seeking action, the writ petiton seeking mandamus is not maintainable, the bench said.

The bench said that other reliefs raised in the petition - such as the reconsideration of the Veeraswami judgment which laid down the in-house inquiry procedure- need not be considered at the present stage.

The petition has been filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three others.

As soon as the matter was taken, Justice Oka told Nedumpara, who was appearing in person, "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. Action has to be taken by the President and the Prime Minister."

"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 calling upon them to take action. If they don't take action, then you can come here," Justice Oka said.

Nedumpara then questioned the Veeraswami judgment on the basis of which the in-house inquiry was done and said that the judgment has to be revisited.

"Ultimately, your main prayer is action should be taken against the concerned judge," Justice Oka said. "Please folllow the basis rule while seeking the writ of mandamus," Justice Oka added.

Nedumpara said that apart from mandamus, he is seeking a declaration that the recovery of cash from the judge's office constitutes a cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the police was duty-bound to register FIR.

However, the bench did not entertain the matter further.

The petitioners approached the Court after the Chief Justice of India forwarded the in-house inquiry report to the President of India and the Prime Minister, reportedly finding the allegations to be prima facie true. The petitioners have submitted that a criminal investigation into the matter is now necessary.

This is the second writ petition filed by Nedumpara in relation to the allegations. In March, he had filed a petition challenging the then-ongoing in-house inquiry conducted by a three-judge panel and sought the initiation of a criminal probe. However, the Supreme Court had dismissed that petition as premature, stating, “at this stage, it will not be appropriate to entertain this Writ Petition.”

In the present petition, the petitioners have argued that the directions in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which require prior permission of the Chief Justice of India before registering an FIR against a sitting judge are contrary to the law and need to be reconsidered.

The petition further contends that impeachment of a judge is not an adequate remedy, stating that removal from office is only a civil consequence, and penal action is required. The petition states that when the accused is a judge who is entrusted with upholding justice the gravity of the offence is far greater. The petitioners have called for a thorough investigation to determine who paid the alleged bribes, who benefitted, and in which cases justice was allegedly compromised.

Justice Yashwant Varma came under scrutiny following reports of a fire on March 14 at the storeroom of his official residence, leading to the discovery of large amounts of cash. On March 21, the Chief Justice of India formed a three-member committee to probe the matter, following a report from Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay recommending further inquiry. The Court also published Justice Upadhyay's report, Justice Varma's response, and related visuals on its website.

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, claiming a conspiracy against him.

Following the controversy, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, which is his parent High Court. His judicial work was withdrawn on the instruction of the CJI.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 534/2025

Case Title – Mathews J Nedumpara and Ors. v. Supreme Court of India and Ors.