The Supreme Court of India on March 28, 2025, dismissed a writ petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma, a former Delhi High Court judge, in connection with the alleged discovery of illicit cash at his official premises. The court ruled that the plea was premature and emphasized that an in-house inquiry must be allowed to proceed before any criminal investigation is considered.

Supreme Court’s Stand on the FIR Plea

A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan refused to entertain the petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara. The petition not only sought an FIR against Justice Varma but also challenged the legitimacy of the in-house inquiry being conducted by a three-judge committee as per the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) directions.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Oka addressed the petitioner, stating:

“Mr. Nedumpara, we have seen the prayers. After the in-house inquiry is over, several options are open. The CJI can direct the registration of an FIR or refer the matter to the Parliament after examining the report. Today is not the time to consider this petition. After the in-house report, all options remain open. The petition is premature.”

The court reiterated that until the in-house inquiry is concluded, no interference was warranted.

Allegations and Questions Raised

Advocate Nedumpara argued that shielding judges from regular investigation through in-house inquiries undermines transparency and accountability. He cited a case in Kerala where allegations under the POCSO Act were made against a sitting High Court judge, yet no FIR was registered. He asserted that the police, and not the judiciary, should conduct criminal investigations.

Regarding Justice Yashwant Varma’s case, Nedumpara raised the following concerns:

• Why was no FIR registered immediately on March 14 when the cash was discovered?
• Why was no seizure mahazar (legal documentation of the seizure) prepared?
• Why was the incident kept under wraps for a week?
• Why was the criminal law not set into motion?

Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court maintained that the matter should first be addressed through the in-house committee before considering further action.

Justice Oka’s Response to Public Concerns

Justice Oka advised the petitioner to educate the common man about the Supreme Court’s judgments regarding in-house inquiries. He emphasized that the process was specifically designed to handle allegations against sitting judges while maintaining judicial integrity.

When Nedumpara requested the court to at least admit the petition for consideration, the bench declined, stating that broader concerns regarding in-house procedures did not need to be addressed at this stage. The court, therefore, disposed of the petition.

Supreme Court’s Order

The Supreme Court’s order, as dictated by the bench, read:

“As far as the grievance regarding the third respondent (Justice Varma) is concerned, as can be seen from the website of the Supreme Court, the in-house procedure is ongoing. Several options will be open to 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, the petition is disposed of.”

Background of the Case

Justice Yashwant Varma came under scrutiny after reports surfaced of a fire at the storeroom of his official residence on March 14, 2025, leading to the discovery of large sums of cash. On March 21, the Chief Justice of India formed a three-member committee to probe the incident following a report from Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay, who recommended further inquiry. The Supreme Court also made public the report by Justice Upadhyay, Justice Varma’s response, and related visuals on its website.

Following this, on March 24, the Delhi High Court withdrew judicial work from Justice Varma. Additionally, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court. Justice Varma, however, denied all allegations, claiming that he was the victim of a conspiracy.

Legal Challenge to the In-House Inquiry System

The petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara also challenged the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which mandates prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India before initiating criminal proceedings against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge. The petitioner argued that this decision effectively grants judges immunity from criminal laws, thereby creating an exclusive class beyond the reach of law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, the petition contended that the in-house committee lacks statutory authority and cannot replace a full-fledged criminal investigation conducted by specialized agencies. It also called for the enactment of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, which aims to ensure greater judicial transparency and accountability.

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s rejection of the petition signifies a strong reinforcement of the judiciary’s internal mechanisms for handling allegations against sitting judges. However, the controversy raises significant questions about judicial accountability and transparency.

The decision sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing that the judiciary must first address allegations through its own internal processes before external criminal investigations are initiated. Nonetheless, critics argue that such an approach risks delaying justice and shielding judges from immediate legal scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the plea for an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma underscores the importance of following judicial protocols before initiating criminal investigations against judges. While the in-house inquiry continues, the case has sparked widespread debate on the accountability of the judiciary and the effectiveness of its internal mechanisms in handling corruption allegations.

The legal fraternity and the public will closely watch the developments in this case, particularly the findings of the in-house inquiry and the subsequent actions taken by the Chief Justice of India. Whether this incident leads to reforms in the judicial investigation process remains to be seen.

Madras High Court Orders ₹1 Lakh Compensation for Woman Denied Maternity Leave ☞ https://wp.me/peEAVD-4LD
Virtual Law Internship by Dubey Law Associates LLP [April – May 2025]: Apply Now ☞ https://wp.me/peEAVD-4LP
Protecting the Rights of Vulnerable Class in India by Aliah University: Register by April 25, 2025 ☞ https://wp.me/peEAVD-4LH