• May 19, 2025
  • Live Match Score
  • 0


Burnt currency notes seen near the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, in New Delhi. File

Burnt currency notes seen near the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, in New Delhi. File
| Photo Credit: ANI

Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Monday (May 19, 2025) told advocate Mathews Nedumpara that his plea seeking an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma, a High Court judge in whose official residence half-burnt currency was found after a blaze in March, will be listed for court hearing provided the defects in the petition are rectified.

Also Read | Cash row: Probe panel confirms allegations against Justice Varma, CJI seeks his reply

The response from the Chief Justice came when Mr. Nedumpara, who is the petitioner-in-person, sought an urgent hearing in a day or two.

“We will list it for hearing, provided you clear the defects,” Chief Justice Gavai addressed the lawyer during the oral mentioning.

Also Read | Justice Yashwant Varma cash row: timeline of events

“No FIR has been registered and the criminal law has not been set in motion. It is indisputable that the huge volumes of money that was burned and partly burned and clandestinely removed was nothing but bribe/corruption – a crime punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act,” the petition alleged.

The petition highlighted a lack of official explanation as to why an FIR was not registered and the criminal law not set into motion.

“This would have meant the seizure of the currency notes, securing the crime location, arresting of suspects, etc,” the petition said.

Also Read | Supreme Court assures communication of CJI’s action on inquiry panel report on Justice Yashwant Varma

Chief Justice Gavai’s predecessor, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, had forwarded the final inquiry committee report into the incident to the President and the Prime Minister after Justice Varma, a High Court judge, had refused to voluntarily retire or resign.

Mr. Nedumpara referred to a Constitution Bench decision in the K. Veeraswami v. Union of India case, which had held that a criminal case against a constitutional court judge could be registered only after prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *