Judge Cash Row: Supreme Court Rejects Plea for FIR, Argument Breakdown

Judge Cash Row: "The Matter is Premature"

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea filed by advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara concerning the "judge cash scandal" involving Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. The plea sought a direction for the Delhi Police to register an FIR (First Information Report) over the discovery of a semi-burnt stash of cash at Justice Varma’s official residence following a fire on March 14, 2025.

The matter was heard by the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who refused to entertain Nedumpara’s plea, deeming it “premature”. The court’s reasoning was based on the fact that an in-house inquiry, initiated by a three-member committee appointed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on March 22, 2025, is already underway to investigate the allegations against Justice Varma. Therefore, the Supreme Court emphasised that it would not interfere while this internal investigation is ongoing.

"Investigation is Not the Job of the Court"

However, Nedumpara, in his argument before the bench, stated: “When such a grave offence is committed, it can only be investigated by the police. Investigation is not the job of the court.” 

To this, the court insisted that after the in-house enquiry, all options are open and that if the report indicates that something is wrong, the Chief Justice of India can direct the registration of an FIR or can refer the matter to the Parliament.

Nedumpara referenced a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) case from Kerala during his arguments: “The allegation was against a sitting judge of the Kerala High Court. The police registered an FIR. However, they could not write the name of the accused. The investigation came to an end.”

Nedumpara highlighted the Kerala case to underscore his point about judicial accountability and the limitations imposed by the 1991 K. Veeraswami ruling, which mandates prior approval from the Chief Justice of India before registering an FIR against a sitting judge. He argued that such immunity hampers police investigations into judicial misconduct, asserting that only law enforcement, not courts, should probe such allegations.

"The Common Man Will Not Understand"

Nedumpara contended: “The common man and media channels, not lawyers and judges who comment on public platforms, keep asking the same question, why no FIR was registered on 14th March, on the day of the occurrence. Why no arrests were made, why the money was not seized, why no mahazar was prepared, why the criminal law was not put into motion. Why it took over almost a week for the public to know about the scandal? Why did the Supreme Court and its collegium not tell the public at large that such a shocking incident had happened and that it is in possession of the videos and records sent to it by the Ministry of Home and other agencies, so also, why did the Chief of the fire force go on to deny that no cash was recovered and thereafter contradict it.”

“We are not saying whether you are right or wrong; what we are saying is today is not the day when we can interfere at this stage. Let the in-house enquiry be over; thereafter, all options are open to the honourable Chief Justice of India,” the Bench stressed.

To this, Nedumpara stated, “The problem is, my lord, the lawyers and judges may understand. They may accept it. But the common man will not understand this.”

"You Educate the Common Man"

The Bench asserted: “You represent the common man. Somebody has to educate the common man also so that they will understand why this system has been created and what are the options available after an internal enquiry report is submitted. Since you represent the common man, you must take the responsibility of educating the common man also.”

"Evidence Will Be Lost"

To this, Nedumpara said: “The evidence will be lost, my lord. The lordships must revisit this issue for the credibility of the institution.”

Nedumpara then requested the Bench to admit his matter by stating: “This is what my petition states, my lord. To declare that the incident of recovery of huge sums of unaccounted money, reportedly Rs. 15 crores, from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, by the fire force/police when their services were sought to douse fire, constitute a cognisable offence punishable under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and that the police is duty bound to register an FIR and that the observations in paragraph 60 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. UOI prohibiting that no criminal case shall be registered against a judge of a High Court or Supreme Court without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India is one rendered per incuriam and sub silentio”.

In essence, Nedumpara’s argument is that the Veeraswami restriction on registering cases against judges is legally unsound—both because it was a careless error (per incuriam) and because it quietly bypassed other important legal norms (sub silentio). 

"In-House Enquiry Cannot Be a Substitute for a Criminal Investigation."

To this, the court ordered: “Heard the petitioner in person. As far as the grievance regarding the third respondent 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 open for the honourable Chief Justice of India. Therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to entertain this petition. The petition has been disposed of.”

An unrelenting Nedumpara argued: “The in-house committee is without any jurisdiction. It has no statutory provision. The purpose of in-house enquiries are different. Suppose a judge comes late every day… or does not deliver judgement on time, for these internal matters, in-house enquiries are used. In-house enquiry cannot be a substitute for a criminal investigation.”

To watch The Spotlight episode on the Judge Cash Scandal, where The Probe Editor in Chief Prema Sridevi brings you the controversies, contradictions, and inconsistencies in the case, click here.

News