The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three co-petitioners seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma.
The petition arose from an in-house inquiry into reports that large sums of unaccounted cash were discovered at Justice Varma’s official residence following a fire in the storeroom on March 14.
In-House Inquiry
Pursuant to a recommendation by Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay, the Chief Justice of India appointed a 3-member committee on March 21 to investigate the allegations. The committee’s report, along with Justice Varma’s written response and related photographic evidence, was subsequently forwarded to both the President of India and the Prime Minister of India and made publicly available on the Supreme Court’s website. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court withdrew all judicial work from Justice Varma and the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer back to the Allahabad High Court, his parent court. Justice Varma has consistently denied any wrongdoing, characterizing the allegations as a “conspiracy” against him.
Procedural Grounds For Dismissal
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the petitioners had failed to observe the mandatory procedure before seeking judicial relief. Since the Chief Justice of India had already forwarded the inquiry report to the President and Prime Minister, any request for mandamus to compel action against Justice Varma must first be addressed to those constitutional authorities. As Justice Oka explained to Nedumpara, 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.”
Emphasizing the absence of any such representation, the bench concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable at this stage.
Challenge To Veeraswami Precedent
Beyond the procedural lapse, the petition sought to revisit the landmark K. Veeraswami v. Union of India judgment, which requires the Chief Justice of India’s sanction before any FIR can be lodged against a sitting judge. Nedumpara contended that this doctrine is outdated and conflicts with newer anti-corruption statutes such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the Court declined to address this constitutional question, deeming it premature without a concrete refusal by the President or Prime Minister to act.
Substantive Allegations & Remedies
The petitioners also urged that recovery of illicit cash should automatically trigger a criminal investigation. They argued that impeachment offers only a “civil consequence” and that judicial misconduct involving bribery demands penal action. Yet, in the absence of a decision by the executive coordinates, the Supreme Court chose not to entertain these substantive claims.
Justice Oka made clear that if the President or Prime Minister fail to take action on any representation filed by the petitioners, “then you can come here.” The Court has not set a further hearing date, leaving open the possibility of renewal once the prescribed procedural prerequisites are met.
(Inputs By Sambhav Sharma)
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
