Explanation to the defects notified in Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India (Diary no. 40429/2025)

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
Advocate
101, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Rd, Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001 Mob: +91 98205 35428/ 99679 69256/ 94471 65650/
mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

25.7.2025

To,
The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India

Sub: Explanation to the defects notified in Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India (Diary no. 40429/2025)

*Objection 9: Clarify as to whether the petition or PIL. If writ, locus to be clarified*.

The principal prayer sought for in the writ petition is a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the police/authorities to register an FIR which they are dutybound to do as per Section 173 of BNSS. In Lalita Kumari’s case the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Police is dutybound to register an FIR and set the criminal law in motion upon receipt of information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offense and where the police have failed to do so, a writ of mandamus will lie as a matter of right. The remedy of mandamus, expressly stated in Article 32, is a fundamental right in itself as expressly stated in Article 32(1). The Petitioners are representing themselves as citizens and lawyers and are not anyone who out of their poverty, illiteracy or like reasons are unable to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 on their one (which is what qualifies as a PIL). This Petition does not therefore, fall under of the category of PILs, where a person acting pro bono espouses the cause of someone else. The Petitioner’s locus is that they are enforcing their own fundamental rights, namely, a writ in the nature of mandamus. Every citizen has a right, nay, duty to set the criminal law in motion, to raise hue and cry and to institute a qui tam action. Hence the instant Writ Petition.

*Objection 10: In person to clarify the nature of matter filed as civil but prayers are criminal in nature*.

What the Petitioner is seeking is a writ in the nature of mandamus to set the criminal law in motion. But it, namely, writ of mandamus is an equitable court granted by the Chancery Court, the defect raised is out of a complete misconception of law. The principal relief sought for is a writ in the nature of a mandamus seeking the registration of an FIR and a declaration that the judgement in K. Veeraswami is per incuriam and sub silentio. Article 32 only speaks of 5 writs, the second being mandamus. Mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, etc. are writs of a civil nature issued by the Chancery courts in England, so too our courts. In theory, only writ of habeas corpus alone is of a criminal nature. It may be added, that the earlier writ petition which came to be disposed of by order dated 28.3.2025 was also a civil writ petition.

*Objection 11: In person to further clarify the maintainability of the instant petition in view of the impeachment proceedings underway pertaining to the subject matter.*

This objection is absolutely misconceived. If a public servant commits a crime, a holder of high constitutional office, public trust, indulges in corruption and accumulates crores of rupees as illegal wealth, far in excess of his known source of income, it will invite both criminal and civil consequences. Civil consequence is removal from service. In the case of a government employee under the service rules. He will also simultaneously face criminal proceedings which would mean the registration of an FIR which would invariably lead to his arrest and a trial and conviction. The person involved in the instant case is a high court judge he cannot be removed from office except by a motion of impeachment which has received the assent of both houses of parliament in the same session. The actor and the judex, both, therein is the Parliament, which includes the President. All are equal before law. Criminal laws of the land apply to all equally and in respect of the huge volumes of cash found at his residence, Justice Varma, if found guilty, is liable to be punished under the laws of the land like any other citizen. No one is immune from the penal laws of the land except for the President and Governor. These are fundamentals. The registry ought not have raised this objection at all.

*objection 12. Further clarify w.r.t. the maintainability of the instant petition in view of similar matter already disposed off with similar prayers vide w.p. (c) 534 of 2025*.

The Petitioner is constrained to file the third writ petition because the supreme Court in the earlier rounds did not adjudicate the case of the Petitioner on merits, did not grant the writ of mandamus directing the police to register an FIR or refuse it. On the contrary, in the first round, the Petitioner was asked to wait for the outcome of the enquiry by the committee of 3 jugdes. In the second round, the petitioners were asked to make a representation to the President and the Prime Minister since the Chief Justice has forwarded the report of the 3-judge committee to the President and Prime Minister. The President and the Government did not act upon the representation of the Petitioners, leaving the Petitioners with no option than to invoke Article 32 a third time for the registration of an FIR and a declaration that the judgement in K. Veeraswami is per incuriam and sub silentio. None of which has been adjudicated upon. The instant petition is not barred by res judicata estoppel.
Objection 13: Slight discrepancy in name to be clarified.
It is very disappointing that the Registry is raising such meaningless objections. The Registry’s objection regarding the abbreviation of middle names is wholly unjustified and lacks any substantial merit. The first Petitioner is Mathews Joseph Nedumpara, who has abbreviated his name as Mathews J. Nedumpara. Similarly, the second Petitioner is Rohini Mohit Amin, abbreviated as Rohini M. Amin. Such standard and universally accepted abbreviation of middle names does not, in any manner, create ambiguity as to the identity of the Petitioners. In fact, even in contexts requiring the highest level of identity verification—such as international air travel—abbreviation of middle names does not raise any objection or lead to refusal of boarding or identification.

The Registry’s insistence on treating this abbreviation as a “discrepancy” is not only unreasonable but also results in undue delay and waste of judicial time. The same documents were submitted in the last two petitions and no such objection was raised. Each time the registry tries to find new and immaterial objections. This is deeply saddening. The Registry’s job is to act as a facilitator, an aid, not to create needless hurdles for the litigants.

The remaining objections are changes that need to be made in the petition and the same are being carried out. When I mentioned the matter on 24.7.2015, the Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to inform me that the matter has already been listed for Monday, 28th July, 2025. Kindly list the matter on Monday, 28th July, 2025, as directed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.

Regards,

Yours Sincerely,

Mathews J. Nedumpara