The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea filed by a lawyer seeking the registration of an FIR against Allahabad High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, in connection with the alleged cash recovery incident.
A two-judge bench of the apex court, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka, declined to hear the petition filed by lawyer Mathews J. Nedumpara. The court advised him to first approach the appropriate authority by way of representation before bringing the matter to the Supreme Court.
“There is already an inquiry, Mr Nedumpara. The report has been forwarded to the Prime Minister and the President of India. File a representation before them. If there is no action, then come to us,” the bench said.
Nedumpara argued that an offence had been committed and cash had been recovered. “The court's duty is to administer law. The K. Veeraswami judgment is a mischief… sorry to say that… but it must be revisited,” he submitted, seeking directions for the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma.
In response, the court remarked, “We appreciate your command of Latin, but please follow basic legal procedure. In a petition for mandamus, you must first go to the proper authority with a representation.” The court added, “The petitioner must seek redress before the appropriate authority by way of representation. We decline to hear the petition.”
Nedumpara had approached the Supreme Court seeking directions for filing an FIR against Justice Varma over the alleged cash recovery issue.
On 8 May, following an indictment by a Supreme Court-appointed in-house committee, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) sent a letter to the Centre recommending Justice Varma’s impeachment.
The former CJI made this recommendation after receiving the committee’s report, which found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct. As Justice Varma refused to resign, Justice Khanna was compelled to take the drastic step.
A senior Supreme Court official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that “Justice Varma was asked to resign following his indictment, but he refused.”
Earlier, the former CJI had written to the President and the Prime Minister of India, enclosing the three-member committee's report dated 3 May, along with Justice Varma’s response dated 6 May. The committee was formed to investigate the cash found at Justice Varma’s residence on 14 March and submitted its findings on 4 May.
The committee comprising Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court), Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court) was formed by the Supreme Court on 25 March.
Over 40 days, the panel examined a range of evidence and interviewed more than 45 individuals, including Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora and the head of the Delhi Fire Service.
Key questions included: Who owned the cash? Who brought and stored the money? Why was the alleged cash not shown to Justice Varma’s family, as he claimed? What happened to the remains of burnt currency notes seen in a video shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner with the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court?
Justice Varma has strongly denied all allegations. He claimed the room where the fire and alleged cash recovery took place was an outhouse, separate from the main residence.
“I state unequivocally that no cash was ever placed in that storeroom by me or any of my family members, and I strongly reject the suggestion that the alleged cash belonged to us. The idea that one would store cash in an open, accessible storeroom near staff quarters or an outhouse is simply absurd.
That room is entirely disconnected from my living area, with a boundary wall separating it. I only wish the media had conducted a proper inquiry before defaming me,” Justice Varma said in his written response, a copy of which was accessed by TNIE.
Earlier, the Supreme Court Collegium, during meetings on 20 and 24 March, had recommended Justice Varma’s repatriation from the Delhi High Court to his parent High Court at Allahabad. He has since been directed not to undertake any judicial work.
The in-house inquiry committee was formed following a report from Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
Reports indicate that a fire at Justice Varma’s house on 14 March led to the alleged discovery of cash by firefighters. The judge was not present at home at the time.
In his reply to the inquiry panel, Justice Varma maintained that no cash was recovered from the part of the premises used by him and his family. “That area is separate from our living quarters. I urge the panel to absolve me of these baseless allegations,” he said.