Cash discovery row: SC rejects plea for FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma

The plea pointed out while the internal inquiry might lead to judicial disciplinary action, it was no substitute for a criminal investigation

Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear a plea seeking an FIR against high court judge Yashwant Varma.
Press Trust of India New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : May 21 2025 | 10:34 PM IST

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear a plea seeking an FIR against high court judge Yashwant Varma in connection with the discovery of cash from this official residence in the capital.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said a press release issued by the top court on May 8 records that the chief justice of India forwarded the report of the in-house enquiry committee along with the judge's response to President and 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 said.

After an in-house inquiry panel indicted Varma, former CJI Sanjiv Khanna nudged him to resign.

Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi after Justice Varma, who was transferred from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court amid the row, refused to resign.

The petition, filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara and three others, called for immediate initiation of criminal proceedings, saying the in-house committee found the allegations against the judge prima facie true.

The plea pointed out while the internal inquiry might lead to judicial disciplinary action, it was no substitute for a criminal investigation under the applicable statutes.

In March, the same petitioners moved the apex court, challenging the in-house inquiry and demanding a formal police investigation.

The top court, however, dismissed the plea as premature, citing the pending nature of the internal proceedings.

With the conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioners contended delaying criminal action was no longer tenable.

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Supreme Court

First Published: May 21 2025 | 1:47 PM IST

Next Story