The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court following the discovery of a significant amount of cash at his residence on March 14. The petition, filed by advocates Mathews J. Nedumpara and Hemali Suresh Kurne, was declined by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. The judges noted that an in-house committee, set up by Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna, was already investigating the matter.
The Bench stated, “The in-house inquiry is ongoing. If the report finds wrongdoing, appropriate actions including an FIR could be considered, or the matter could be referred to Parliament. Today is not the time to consider this plea.”
Advocate Nedumpara raised concerns about the perceived delay in judicial and legal responses, arguing that the public was troubled by the lack of immediate action. “The common man keeps asking why no FIR was registered immediately, no arrest made, nor any criminal procedures initiated,” Nedumpara argued.
Justice Oka responded by emphasizing the need to respect the established judicial process. “Please read the judgments that outline the in-house inquiry process. After the inquiry, all options are open,” he remarked.
The incident that sparked the controversy occurred due to a fire at Justice Varma’s residence, which led to the discovery of the cash. Following this, allegations of corruption surfaced against Justice Varma, who denied the accusations, suggesting a conspiracy to defame him. A video capturing the scene of the cash recovery was reportedly shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner with the judiciary, and has been made available on the Supreme Court’s website along with a report from the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and a response from Justice Varma.
The Supreme Court also noted that it had set up a three-member committee on March 22 to probe the allegations, with the inquiry already underway. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the repatriation of Justice Varma to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, a decision still pending approval from the Central Government.
Advocate Nedumpara criticized the delay in initiating criminal proceedings and questioned the judicial handling of the matter, labeling it as a potential cover-up and an “open and shut case” of judicial corruption. He also challenged the constitutional validity of requiring the Chief Justice’s approval before initiating criminal proceedings against a judge, a stipulation stemming from the Supreme Court’s decision in K Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991).
