Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai reprimanded the Supreme Court on 21 July 2025 for his addressing lawyer Mathews J. Nedmapara for addressing Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Verma only “Verma”. Nedmapara had requested to list its third petition for immediate hearing demanding the first information report (FIR) against Justice Verma. CJI Gawai expressed displeasure and said, “Are he your friends? How are you addressing him? Keep some courtesy in the court. He is still a judge of a constitutional court.” Nedmapara replied, “This petition cannot be dismissed. FIR should be lodged. Now Verma wants the same.” To this, CJI said, “Do not direct the court.”
The dispute began on 14 March 2025 after a fire broke out at Justice Verma’s official residence in Lutyens region in Delhi, when a huge cache of half -burnt cash was found there. The three -member inquiry committee constituted by the then CJI Sanjeev Khanna found Justice Verma and his family members guilty of controlling the storeroom, which was considered serious misconduct. The committee recommended impeachment, after which Justice Verma was shifted from the Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court and was not assigned any judicial work. Nedmapara’s petition claimed that cash recovery is an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Money Laundering, and Delhi Police should have registered an FIR.
The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed Nedmapara’s two petitions in March and May 2025, saying that they would first have to represent the Central Government and the Delhi Police. Court of 1991 K.K. Cited the Veeraswamy case, stating that an FIR cannot be lodged against an existing judge without the permission of CJI. Nedmapara demanded a review of the decision. On the other hand, Justice Verma, questioning the fairness of the inquiry committee, filed a petition in the Supreme Court, in which he demanded the cancellation of the recommendations of the committee. The central government is now preparing to bring impeachment motion against him in the monsoon session of Parliament.
This case raises questions of transparency and accountability in the judiciary. CJI Gawai assured Nedmapara to hear after removing the flaws in the petition, but refused to hear immediately.
