NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma following the discovery of a large sum of half-burnt cash at his official residence in Delhi.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that a press release issued by the Supreme Court on May 8 had already recorded that the Chief Justice of India had forwarded the report of an in-house inquiry committee-along with the judge’s response -- to both the President and the Prime Minister of India.
"Before seeking the writ of mandamus, the petitioner will have to seek redressal of their grievance by filing representation before the appropriate authorities. Therefore, we decline to entertain this writ petition. At this stage it is not necessary to look into the other prayers," the bench observed.
The petition was filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three others, who demanded immediate criminal proceedings against Justice Varma.
They argued that the in-house panel had found the allegations against him prima facie credible, and that internal judicial mechanisms should not prevent a proper criminal investigation under Indian law.
The controversy dates back to March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s Lutyens Delhi residence. In its aftermath, large amounts of cash were discovered, prompting swift action from the Supreme Court Collegium.
Justice Varma was subsequently transferred from the Delhi high court to the Allahabad high court. However, Allahabad HC's Bar association raised voice against this decision of top court.
Following the internal probe, then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna reportedly asked Justice Varma to resign. When he refused, Justice Khanna formally communicated the committee’s findings and Varma’s response to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The same group of petitioners had earlier approached the apex court in March, challenging the legitimacy of the in-house inquiry and pressing for a formal police probe. That plea was dismissed at the time as premature, given that the internal proceedings were still under way.
With the inquiry now concluded, the petitioners argued that further delay in initiating criminal proceedings was unjustified. However, the court declined to intervene, directing the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities for further action.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that a press release issued by the Supreme Court on May 8 had already recorded that the Chief Justice of India had forwarded the report of an in-house inquiry committee-along with the judge’s response -- to both the President and the Prime Minister of India.
"Before seeking the writ of mandamus, the petitioner will have to seek redressal of their grievance by filing representation before the appropriate authorities. Therefore, we decline to entertain this writ petition. At this stage it is not necessary to look into the other prayers," the bench observed.
The petition was filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three others, who demanded immediate criminal proceedings against Justice Varma.
They argued that the in-house panel had found the allegations against him prima facie credible, and that internal judicial mechanisms should not prevent a proper criminal investigation under Indian law.
The controversy dates back to March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s Lutyens Delhi residence. In its aftermath, large amounts of cash were discovered, prompting swift action from the Supreme Court Collegium.
Justice Varma was subsequently transferred from the Delhi high court to the Allahabad high court. However, Allahabad HC's Bar association raised voice against this decision of top court.
Following the internal probe, then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna reportedly asked Justice Varma to resign. When he refused, Justice Khanna formally communicated the committee’s findings and Varma’s response to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The same group of petitioners had earlier approached the apex court in March, challenging the legitimacy of the in-house inquiry and pressing for a formal police probe. That plea was dismissed at the time as premature, given that the internal proceedings were still under way.
With the inquiry now concluded, the petitioners argued that further delay in initiating criminal proceedings was unjustified. However, the court declined to intervene, directing the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities for further action.
You may also like
Man Utd sent Darwin Nunez transfer demand as Liverpool star 'says yes' to move
Met Office issues tornado alert as England pummelled by torrential rain
Patricia Hodge says she's 'lucky to work' as she returns to screens aged 78
Kevin De Bruyne 'decides on joining Prem rivals' after Mo Salah urged Liverpool transfer
Xbox Game Pass adding a 2024 game of the year contender and one of the best RPGs ever
