Today, the Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three others, which sought the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma.

The petition was based on allegations surrounding the recovery of illicit cash from the judge's official residence and called for action following an in-house inquiry into the matter.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the in-house committee’s report, along with Justice Varma’s response, had already been forwarded by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to the President and the Prime Minister. Since the petitioners had not made any representation to these constitutional authorities, the Court held that the writ of mandamus was not maintainable.

“There was an in-house inquiry. The report has been sent to the President and the Prime Minister. Action is to be taken by them. If you are seeking a writ of mandamus, you must first make a representation before approaching the Court,” Justice Oka remarked during the hearing.

When Nedumpara, appearing in person, questioned the basis of the in-house procedure laid down in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, the bench noted that reconsideration of that judgment was not relevant at this stage.

Justice Oka reiterated that if the petitioners were dissatisfied with the response—or lack thereof—from the constitutional authorities, they were free to approach the Court at that stage.

In addition to seeking a mandamus, the petitioners had also requested a declaration that the alleged recovery of cash constituted a cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act, obligating the police to register an FIR. However, the Court did not entertain these additional prayers.

This marks the second attempt by Nedumpara to seek judicial intervention in the matter. In March, the Supreme Court had dismissed a similar plea challenging the ongoing in-house inquiry, terming it premature.

The present petition also raised concerns about the Veeraswami precedent, which mandates prior approval from the CJI before registering an FIR against a sitting judge. The petitioners argued that this requirement is incompatible with principles of criminal accountability and needs to be revisited. They further contended that impeachment is merely a civil remedy, insufficient to address potential criminal wrongdoing by a judge.

The controversy surrounding Justice Varma emerged after a fire was reported on March 14 in the storeroom of his official residence, allegedly leading to the discovery of large amounts of unaccounted cash. Following a report by Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay, the CJI constituted a three-judge committee on March 21 to conduct an internal inquiry. Justice Varma's response and related documents were made public on the Supreme Court’s website.

In the wake of the inquiry, Justice Varma was relieved of his judicial duties by the Delhi High Court and was subsequently transferred to the Allahabad High Court—his parent court—on the recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium. Justice Varma has categorically denied all allegations, asserting that he is the victim of a conspiracy.

Case Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
W.P.(C) No. 534/2025