New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara and others seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the alleged recovery of illicit cash from his official residence.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had already forwarded the report of the in-house inquiry committee, along with Justice Varma’s response, to the President and the Prime Minister of India.
“Since no representation has been made to the President or the Prime Minister seeking action, the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus is not maintainable,” the bench noted.
The court clarified that it was not rejecting the petitioners’ right to approach the judiciary at a later stage. “We are not saying you cannot file. But first, you must follow the basic rule.
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued unless a representation has been made to the authorities concerned,” Justice Oka remarked during the hearing.
The court also declined to entertain other prayers in the petition, such as reconsideration of the K. Veeraswami judgment, which governs the procedure for initiating criminal proceedings against sitting judges. Justice Oka said such issues “need not be considered at the present stage.”
Advocate Nedumpara, appearing in person, contended that the in-house procedure under the Veeraswami judgment was inadequate and called for a criminal investigation. He argued that the alleged recovery of cash constituted a cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and therefore mandated registration of an FIR by police.
However, the court was unmoved. “You don’t know the contents of the report. We also don’t know them. If you are serious, make a representation. If no action follows, come back,” Justice Oka said, emphasizing procedural propriety.
The present petition is the second such plea filed by Nedumpara. In March, the Supreme Court had dismissed an earlier petition as premature, which had sought a stay on the in-house inquiry conducted by a three-judge committee.
The petitioners have challenged the continued validity of Veeraswami, contending that the requirement of prior sanction from the CJI before initiating any FIR against a sitting judge contradicts basic principles of criminal law.
They further argued that impeachment is merely a civil remedy, and criminal prosecution is necessary when serious corruption allegations arise against a judge.
Justice Yashwant Varma came under the scanner after a fire broke out on March 14 in the storeroom of his official residence, leading to the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash.
Based on a report from Delhi High Court Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay, the CJI constituted a three-member in-house committee on March 21 to investigate the matter.
The Supreme Court subsequently made public the Delhi High Court CJ’s report, Justice Varma’s response, and related visuals on its website.
On March 24, Justice Varma was divested of his judicial responsibilities by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium later recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court.
The petitioners have sought a thorough probe to determine the source of the cash, the beneficiaries, and whether judicial integrity was compromised in any cases.
Despite raising concerns over judicial accountability, the apex court firmly reiterated the need for due process, stating that the matter remains in the domain of the executive until further representation is made.
UNI/SNG
