In a case that’s gripped the legal fraternity and sparked public debate, the Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea by a group of lawyers seeking criminal proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma, following sensational allegations of illicit cash recovery from his official residence. The verdict served as a firm reminder of the checks and balances that govern judicial accountability in India.
A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made it clear: before asking the court to intervene, the petitioners should have first knocked on the doors of the President and the Prime Minister — the constitutional custodians who oversee action against sitting judges. “If you are seeking a writ of mandamus, you have to first make a representation to those authorities,” Justice Oka told Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, who appeared in person.
The bench stressed that the judiciary had not ignored the matter. A detailed in-house inquiry had already been conducted — its findings, along with Justice Varma’s response, were forwarded by the Chief Justice of India to the highest executive offices. Yet, the Court also acknowledged its own limitations: without a proper constitutional representation, it could neither compel action nor reopen the Veeraswami precedent, which governs how sitting judges can face criminal investigation.
Justice Varma came under scrutiny after a mysterious fire broke out on March 14 at the storeroom of his residence. The blaze reportedly led to the discovery of large sums of cash, triggering a flurry of accusations and headlines. In response, the CJI swiftly formed a three-judge panel to probe the matter. Justice Varma was subsequently stripped of judicial duties by the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court Collegium later recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court — his parent institution. Justice Varma has strongly denied the allegations, calling them a part of a larger conspiracy.
Yet, for the petitioners — who include Nedumpara and three other advocates — the matter isn't just administrative. They argue that mere internal disciplinary steps fall short when the stakes are this high. “When a judge is accused of wrongdoing, it shakes the foundation of public trust,” Nedumpara argued, calling for criminal accountability, not just institutional reshuffling.
Still, this marks the second time the top court has turned away their challenge, reiterating that due process must begin with constitutional authorities. For now, the spotlight turns to Rashtrapati Bhavan and the Prime Minister’s Office — as the larger question lingers: How should a democracy balance judicial independence with judicial accountability?
This moment, though steeped in procedure, is a poignant one. It speaks not only to the fragility of public trust in institutions but to the delicate dance between transparency and the sanctity of the bench.
