The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a first information report (FIR) and an investigation into the discovery of cash at Delhi high court judge Yashwant Varma’s house, noting that an in-house inquiry ordered by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna was already on, rendering the plea “premature”.
The top court underscored that after the inquiry, the CJI would have several options at his disposal, including recommending an FIR and initiating impeachment proceedings against justice Varma, depending on the conclusion of the probe.
“After the in-house inquiry is over, several options are available. The CJI can order an FIR and also recommend parliamentary proceedings (for impeachment) based on the findings of the report. Today, it (petition) is premature because the in-house inquiry is underway. Many options will be open after this inquiry is over,” a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan told advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who argued the case in person as the petitioner.
Nedumpara countered, stating that investigating the matter was the police’s duty, not the judiciary’s. He also questioned why no FIR was lodged immediately upon the discovery of cash at justice Varma’s residence on March 14. “The common man keeps asking the question: why was no FIR registered on the day the money was discovered?” he asked.
The bench reiterated its stance, emphasising the established judicial process. “We have seen your petition. Today is not the day we can interfere. There is an in-house inquiry going on. After the inquiry is over, all options will be there. This mechanism has evolved following judgments of the Supreme Court. It should be your task to educate the common man about the mechanism that has been put in place and which has been initiated,” the court stated.
Nedumpara also challenged the Supreme Court’s ruling in K Veeraswami Vs Union of India (1991), which mandates the CJI’s approval before registering a criminal case against a sitting high court or Supreme Court judge. “When a judgment is against a statute, the latter must prevail. Veeraswami must give way to the criminal law of the land. The police are duty-bound to lodge an FIR. The judgment is per incuriam (against the law),” he argued.
But the bench refused to wade into the legal debate, telling Nedumpara that the in-house inquiry has evolved over a period of time with a series of judicial precedents. “Wait for the report. There can be many options afterwards,” it said.
Disposing of the petition, the court ordered: “As far as the grievance regarding Justice Varma is concerned, as can be seen from the website of the Supreme Court, the in-house procedure is in progress. After the report is submitted by the committee, there will be several options available with the CJI after the conclusion of the inquiry. Therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to entertain this writ petition. There are wider prayers against some of the decisions of this court. At this stage, according to us, it is not necessary to go into that aspect. Subject to what is observed above, the petition is disposed of.”
The PIL alleged that a substantial amount of unaccounted cash was discovered at Justice Varma’s residence after Delhi Fire Services (DFS) officials arrived to douse a fire at his bungalow while he was in Bhopal. It questioned the delay in disclosing details of the recovery, alleging a cover-up, and demanded a thorough police probe.
Justice Varma has denied any connection to the cash found at his residence, calling the allegations an attempt to frame him. The petition, however, argued that if the money was not his, he should have immediately reported the matter to the police and sought an FIR to investigate any conspiracy to falsely implicate him.
On March 23, the CJI announced the formation of a three-member in-house inquiry panel, comprising justice Sheel Nagu (chief justice of Punjab & Haryana high court), justice GS Sandhawalia (chief justice of Himachal Pradesh high court), and justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka high court), to examine the circumstances surrounding the cash discovery and assess justice Varma’s continuation as a judge. Following the recommendation of Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Varma was de-rostered, with the Supreme Court directing that no judicial work be assigned to him.
The controversy stems from a reported fire at Justice Varma’s official residence on Tughlak Road on March 14 at around 11.35pm. While DFS officials extinguished the fire within minutes, first responders—including DFS personnel and possibly the police— discovered stacks of cash in a storeroom, some of which were reportedly charred. Justice Varma and his wife were in Bhopal at the time.
On March 20, the Supreme Court collegium unanimously recommended transferring justice Varma to the Allahabad high court — his parent high court. This decision was formalised by the collegium through a resolution on March 24. But this decision has sparked resistance from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA), which has questioned whether the court is being used as a “dumping ground” for judges facing controversy. It has called for the judge to be impeached. Meanwhile, CJI Khanna and members of the Supreme Court collegium met leaders of various bar associations on Thursday and assured them that their concerns regarding justice Yashwant Varma’s transfer to the Allahabad high court would be taken into account.
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hindi
Italian
Marathi
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish