Supreme Court objects to lawyer's impolite reference to Justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court today took strong objection to Advocate Mathews Nedumpara's reference to Justice Yashwant Varma before it.

While mentioning his petition seeking a direction to the Delhi Police to register an FIR in connection with the cash discovery from Justice Varma's residence, Nedumpara submitted, "This is the third petition that has been filed...there has to be an investigation...Varma himself has asked for it..".

Hearing this, a miffed CJI BR Gavai asked, "Is he your friend..why are you referring like that..he is still a judge..".

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who was also present before court virtually, objected to this. "Don't address him like that..", the SG said.

The bench went on to tell Advocate Nedumpara that it would right away dismiss his petition seeking a direction to the Delhi Police to register an FIR in connection with the discovery and removal of crores worth of currency notes; both burned and unburned, from the official residence of a sitting Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma.

The petition filed through Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara alleges a “systemic breakdown” of legal accountability, asserts that despite clear and alarming evidence of potential criminality, no FIR has been registered to date. This, the petitioners argue, is a gross dereliction of the statutory duty cast upon the Delhi Police and the Union Government, which controls the Delhi Police.

According to the petition, the incident occurred when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence. The judge’s daughter had summoned the fire department, which arrived along with police officers. Shockingly, the fire personnel reportedly found several plastic sacks filled with currency notes engulfed in flames. Videos and photographs of the scene were taken and shared internally among officials, but no public disclosure was made until The Times of India broke the story on March 21, 2025.

Notably, Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court has also approached the Supreme Court challenging the recommendation made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for his removal from office, following an internal inquiry into the discovery of burnt cash at his official residence in Delhi earlier this year.

The petition filed through AoR Vaibhav Niti which raises serious constitutional questions about the limits of the judiciary’s internal disciplinary mechanism, seeks to quash the May 3, 2025 Final Report of a three-member in-house inquiry committee that found allegations against the judge “proved,” and the subsequent recommendation by the CJI to the President and Prime Minister on May 8, 2025 to initiate removal proceedings.

In his petition, Justice Varma has argued that the In-House Procedure lacks constitutional or statutory backing for recommending removal, and that it cannot override the process set out in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which governs impeachment proceedings under Article 124(5).

He asserts that the process followed was in breach of natural justice and due process; no formal hearing was granted, evidence was selectively disclosed, and critical questions about the origin and quantity of the cash, the cause of fire, and the alleged removal were left unanswered.

The petition also highlights concerns over procedural irregularities: no formal complaint existed, the judge was denied a chance to review evidence or respond meaningfully, and unprecedented media disclosures by the Supreme Court and leaks of the report caused lasting reputational damage.

The Supreme Court had earlier declined to order an FIR, asking petitioners to await the committee’s findings. Even after the report was allegedly submitted, reportedly indicting Justice Varma, no FIR was registered, prompting the current petition.

The previous petitioners were also advised to approach the President and Prime Minister. While representations were made, the plea states there has been no response or directive to investigate, despite the gravity of the incident.

In May, the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India had refused to provide information in an RTI application seeking copy of the inhouse inquiry report against Justice Yashwant Varma. The RTI also sought copy of the letter sent by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the Prime Minister and President of India.