New Delhi, May 21: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a petition seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against High Court Judge Yashwant Varma, following the reported recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence in the national capital.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who cited procedural requirements and an earlier press release issued by the apex court on May 8.
“The Chief Justice of India has already forwarded the findings of the in-house enquiry committee, along with the judge’s response, to the President of India and the Prime Minister,” the bench noted, referring to the internal disciplinary framework for judges.
The bench stressed that the petitioner must first pursue appropriate representation before competent authorities before invoking the court’s writ jurisdiction. “We decline to entertain this writ petition. At this stage, it is not necessary to look into the other prayers,” the court observed.
The petition, filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara along with three others, had sought immediate criminal proceedings against Justice Varma. The plea argued that the findings of the in-house committee—which found the allegations prima facie credible—warranted criminal investigation under applicable laws.
The plea also asserted that while internal inquiries could trigger judicial accountability mechanisms, they do not substitute for police investigation or prosecution under statutory frameworks.
Following the internal probe, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna reportedly urged Justice Varma to resign. However, Varma, who was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court, declined to step down. Subsequently, Justice Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending further action.
This marks the second time the petitioners have approached the apex court on the issue. In March 2025, the Supreme Court had dismissed an earlier plea as “premature,” citing the ongoing internal proceedings.
As of now, the court has left the door open for further action, should the petitioners first exhaust remedies with the appropriate constitutional or statutory authorities.
