“Before You Seek Writ Of Mandamus, Go To Authorities”: Supreme Court Declines Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Verma
Justice Yashwant Varma, Allahabad High Court
The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a PIL filed by Advocate Matthews Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Verma after the in-house inquiry conducted by a three-member committee of the Supreme Court into the recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Mr Nedumpara, there was an in-house inquiry. Just see the press release on the Supreme Court website that says that it has been forwarded to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India. You are seeking writ of mandamus. So follow the basic rule. First, make a representation to these authorities before whom issue is pending. And then come by for writ of mandamus. Follow basic rule.”
Advocate Matthews Nedumpara argued, “The issue is not that. The issue is slightly different. Here, the public perception is that an offence has occurred, unaccounted money has been recovered… And there is a bribe giver, there is a bribe taker. That is the perception. And that is a cognisable offence. The penal laws of the country are equal to one…”
To this, Justice Oka responded, “So therefore, there is a law laid down by this Court. That law has been followed by Honourable Chief Justice of India. In-house committee was appointed. Now report, as per the judgement, has been forwarded to the concerned authorities.”
One of the prayers sought by Nedumpara was the modification of the K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) judgment of the Supreme Court. “Veerasamy is a mischief in a legal way. Veerasamy’s judgment is one that has done so much of a miscarriage, mischief... So, therefore, my Lord, Veera Swami has to be revisited”, Nedumpara submitted.
Justice Oka remarked, “While we appreciate your command on Latin, when you seek a writ of mandamus, go to the authorities.”
Nedumpara read from the petition that the incidental recovery of crores of unaccounted money from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Verma constituted a cognisable offence punishable under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that police is duty-bound to register an FIR.
He further argued, “The observations in paragraph 60 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Veerasamy prohibiting that no criminal case shall be registered against a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India… the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution, namely the freedom of speech and expression, takes within its ambit the right to access the report and finding of the in-house committee which investigated the incident of recovery of huge volumes of currency at the residence of Justice Yashwant Verma.”
Refusing to entertain the petition, Justice Oka ordered, “The grievance in the petition is that no police has been initiated against respondent number 3 on the basis of allegations made against him and on the basis of report of in-house inquiry. Press release issued by this court on 8 May 2025 records that Hon’ble Chief Justice of India has forwarded report of in-house inquiry committee along with the response of the third respondent the Hon’ble President of India and Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, before the petitioners seek writ of mandamus, the petitioners will have to seek redressal of their grievance by filing representation before the appropriate authorities. The petitioners have not done that. Therefore, we decline to entertain this petition. At this stage, it is not necessary to look into the other prayers.”
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, had refused to list this matter on an urgent basis when Matthews mentioned it on May 14, 2025.
The Supreme Court had issued a press release stating, “Chief Justice of India, in terms of the In-House Procedure, has written to Hon’ble the President of India and Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India enclosing therewith copy of the 3-Member Committee report dated 03.05.2025 along with the letter/response dated 06.05.2025 received from Mr Justice Yashwant Varma.
The inquiry followed reports of the recovery of unaccounted cash, reportedly amounting to 15 crores, from Justice Varma’s official bungalow in Delhi. A fire had broken out at the residence, prompting family members to call the fire department and police. After the fire was extinguished, officials reportedly discovered the cash in one of the rooms. Following the incident, the matter was placed before the Supreme Court, and the Collegium unanimously decided to repatriate Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court.
Matthews had also filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the immunity granted to judges from immediate criminal prosecution, and urged the Court to revisit the precedent set in Veeraswami, which mandates prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India before registering an FIR against sitting judges.
Cause Title: Matthews J Nedumpara & Ors. v. Supreme Court of India (W.P. (C) No. 534/2025)