Cash row: SC objects when lawyer refers Justice Varma simply as ‘Varma’
CJI B.R. Gavai rebuked an advocate for disrespectfully referring to Justice Yashwant Varma, who is facing serious cash-recovery allegations. As calls grow for an FIR, Justice Varma has challenged the in-house panel's findings recommending impeachment proceedings in the Supreme Court
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on Monday objected to the manner in which an advocate referred to Justice Yashwant Varma, who is currently embroiled in a controversy involving the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from a storeroom attached to his official residence.
During court proceedings, advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, seeking urgent listing of a plea, referred to the judge simply as “Varma,” prompting a stern rebuke from the CJI.
“Is he your friend? He is still Justice Varma. Have some decorum! You are referring to a learned judge,” CJI Gavai said, instructing Nedumpara to maintain respect while addressing a sitting Constitutional Court judge.
The advocate was making his third consecutive plea seeking directions to the Delhi Police for registration of an FIR in connection with the alleged discovery of large quantities of burnt cash at Justice Varma’s bungalow in New Delhi.
CJI Gavai declined to pass any order on urgent listing and cautioned Nedumpara: “You want the petition to be dismissed right now?” Nedumpara, however, insisted that an FIR must be registered, stating, “Now, Varma seems to be asking for that only. There has to be an FIR and investigation.”
In his petition, Nedumpara and his co-petitioners argued that the Union government, which oversees the Delhi Police, was duty-bound to direct registration of an FIR once the alleged cash was discovered following a fire incident on March 14.
In May, a Supreme Court bench led by then Justice Abhay S. Oka (now retired) and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had declined to entertain a similar plea from Nedumpara.
At that time, the court advised the petitioners to first approach the President and Prime Minister of India, before seeking a writ of mandamus. “There was an in-house inquiry report.
It has been forwarded to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India for action. If you are seeking a writ of mandamus, you have to first make a representation to those authorities,” Justice Oka had stated.
In March, the same bench had disposed of another plea seeking FIR registration and an effective investigation into the matter, noting that the in-house inquiry was still ongoing and that legal action, including referral to Parliament, could follow depending on the findings.
Following the explosive allegations, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and a three-member in-house inquiry panel was constituted under then CJI Justice Khanna.
The panel found the allegations grave enough to warrant impeachment proceedings. Sources indicate that the Union government is preparing to initiate removal proceedings, with a possible impeachment motion during the Monsoon Session of Parliament.
Meanwhile, Justice Varma has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the findings of the in-house panel, alleging that the committee acted in a “pre-determined manner” and denied him a fair opportunity to defend himself.
