'Premature, Await In-House Inquiry' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Register FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma Over Cash Row

The Supreme Court on Friday (March 28) refused to entertain a writ petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma, former Delhi High Court Judge, over the alleged discovery of illicit cash at official premises.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that the petition, which also challenged the in-house inquiry being conducted by a committee of three judges as per the directions of the Chief Justice of India, was premature.

At the very outset, Justice Oka told the petitioner, Advocate Mathews J Nedupmara:

"Mr.Nedumpara, we have seen the prayers. After the in-house inquiry is over, several options are open. CJI can direct the register of the FIR or refer the matter to the 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."

Highlighting the need to review the judgments shielding Judges from regular investigation, Nedumpara said that in Kerala, there was a POCSO case allegation against a then-sitting High Court Judge; however, the Police did not register an FIR.  Nedumpara said that investigation is not the job of the Court and should be left to the police. The in-house committee is not a statutory authority and cannot be a substitute for criminal investigations undertaken by specialised agencies.

Nedumpara said that regarding the Justice Yashwant Varma case, the common man is asking several questions- Why no FIR was registered on the day when the cash was discovered on March 14? Why no seizure mahazar was prepared? Why the scandal was kept secret for one week? Why the criminal law was not set into motion.

"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," Justice Oka repeated. When Nedumpara again referred to the common man's concerns, Justice Oka told him to educate the common man about the judgments of the Supreme Court, laying down the in-house procedure and the reasons for evolving such a special process.

Nedumpara requested the bench to at least admit the petition and examine the issues raised. The bench however did not entertain the prayer and passed an order dismissing it. Regarding the "wider prayers" in the petition seeking the reading down of the judgments in K Veeraswami and other cases (on in-house procedure), the bench said that it was not necessary to go into that aspect at this stage.

The order dictated by the bench read as:

"As far grievance regarding the third respondent (Justice Varma) is concerned, as can be seen from the website of the Supreme Court, in-house procedure is going on. There will be several options 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.

There are wider prayers against some of the decisions of this court seeking to read them down. At this stage, according to us, it is not necessary to go into that aspect. Subject to what is observed above petition is disposed of."

Background

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.

The petition, filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, has also challenged the Supreme Court's judgment in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which mandates prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India before filing a criminal case against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge, as per incuriam. The petition argues that this decision effectively creates a class of judges immune from criminal laws.

The petition also challenges the validity of the inquiry committee, contending that the collegium has no jurisdiction to conduct such an investigation. It calls for a declaration that the recovery of cash constitutes a cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, warranting a police investigation. Additionally, the petitioner has sought the enactment of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 to address judicial corruption.

Case no. – Diary No. 15529-2025

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