Cash discovery row: SC says no to plea for FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against High Court judge Yashwant Varma in connection with the recovery of cash from his official residence in Delhi

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against High Court judge Yashwant Varma in connection with the recovery of cash from his official residence in Delhi, reported news agency PTI.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan referred to a press release issued on May 8, which stated that the Chief Justice of India had forwarded the report of the in-house enquiry committee, along with the judge's response, to the President and Prime Minister of India for further consideration.

Speaking about the case, the bench observed, “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 court’s remarks emphasized the importance of following due process before invoking judicial intervention.

Following the indictment of Justice Yashwant Varma by the in-house inquiry panel, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna reportedly urged him to resign. However, Justice Varma, who had been transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court amid the controversy, refused to step down. Justice Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, apprising them of the situation and the judge’s response to the findings, reported PTI. 

The petition, filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara along with three others, sought the immediate initiation of criminal proceedings, arguing that the in-house committee had found the allegations against Justice Varma to be prima facie credible. The plea emphasized that while an internal inquiry could lead to judicial disciplinary action, it was not a substitute for a full-fledged criminal investigation under the applicable legal provisions.

In March, the same petitioners had approached the Supreme Court challenging the legitimacy of the in-house inquiry and demanding a formal police investigation. The top court, however, dismissed that plea as premature, citing the ongoing nature of the internal proceedings at the time. Now that the inquiry has concluded, the petitioners argue that delaying criminal action any further is legally untenable and undermines the rule of law.

(With inputs from PTI)

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!