IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025

(Against the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025)

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
WITH
I.A. NO. OF 2025
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REVIEW PETITION FILED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT AS PARTY IN PERSONS
AND
I.A. NO. OF 2025
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND
I.A. NO. OF 2025
APPLICATION FOR ORAL HEARING OF REVIEW PETITION IN OPEN COURT

PAPER BOOK
[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 3 ORS.:
REVIEW PETITIONER PARTY-IN-PERSONS
MOB. NO. +91 9820535428

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SL. NO. DATE OF PROCEEDINGS PAGE NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
INDEX
S. No. Particulars of Documents Page No. of part to which it belongs Remarks
Part I
[Contents of Paper Book] Part-II
[Contents of file alone]

[i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v]
Court Fees
1 O/R on Limitation A A
2 Listing Performa. NA NA
3 Cover page of Paper Book A-1
4 Index of Record of Proceedings A-2
5 Limitation Report prepared by the Registry. A-3
6 Defect List A-4
7 Note Sheet
8 Synopsis
9 Copy of the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025.
10 Review Petition with Affidavit.
11 Certificate
12 ANNEXURE P-1
A true copy of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025 filed before this Hon’ble Court on 25.07.2025 along with all annexures.
13 ANNEXURE P-2
A true copy of the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 15529 of 2025.
14 ANNEXURE P-3
A true copy of the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 534 of 2025.

15 ANNEXURE P-4
A true copy of the Representation dated 26.05.2025 sent by the Petitioner No. 1 herein to the Hon’ble President of India, New Delhi without annexures.
16 ANNEXURE P-5
A true copy of the report of the committee.
17 I.A. NO. OF 2025
Application for permission to appear and argue the above-mentioned Review Petition filed before this Hon’ble Court as Party in Person.
18 I.A. NO. OF 2025
Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the final impugned judgment.
19 I.A. NO. OF 2025
Application for oral hearing of Review Petition in open court.
20 F/M
21 V/A

 
SYNOPSIS
In Justice Yashwant Varma’s case, money laundering, corruption and other criminal offences which were not otherwise known to the world, was exposed as a result of an accidental fire. The Police came to the scene and the Commissioner of Police reported the crime to the Chief Justice of India. Therefore, there is no need for anyone to inform or report to the police for the criminal law in motion. The Police did not register an FIR and start investigation because the 5-judge constitution bench in K. Veeraswami prohibited the police from registering an FIR against a judge of the High Court/Supreme Court without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice on being informed of the crime, ought to have directed the police to register an FIR and set the criminal law in motion. The Chief Justice instead uploaded the images and videos of the burned cash on the website of the Court and constituted a committee for investigation. The Petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court repeatedly since the criminal law was not set in motion. All the three petitions which the Petitioners instituted were dismissed without going into the merits of the case. The resultant scenario today is that the criminal law remains to be set in motion and those who committed such grave offences such as money laundering and corruption – the bribe giver, bribe taker, fixers, brokers, all remain unscathed. The only consequence which Justice Varma seems to face today is impeachment, a purely civil proceedings which can result in his removal from office and in case he resigns in the meanwhile, he will be entitled to pension and other retiral benefits. This Court was duty bound to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus because the Police inspite of receipt of information (including the report of the committee) of the commission of a cognizable offense has failed to set the criminal law in motion. This Court instead dismissed the Petitioners’ plea finding them to be at fault of not producing a copy of the representation which they indeed had produced as Annexure P-5 at page 118 of the Writ Petition.
Hence the present Review Petition.

 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The petition is within time.
2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of days in filing the same against the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 and petition of condonation of __ days delay has been filed.
3. There is delay of _ days in refilling the petition and petition for condonation of _ days in refilling has been filed.
   (BRANCH OFFICER)

Place: New Delhi
Dated: 16.08.2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025

(Against the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025)
CAUSE TITLE IN REVIEW PETITION POSITION OF PARTIES

BETWEEN: IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) IN THIS REVIEW PETITION

1. MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA, ADVOCATE, 101, 1ST FLOOR, GUNDECHA CHAMBER, NAGINDAS ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI,
   MAHARASHTRA-400001.
   PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1 REVIEW PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1
2. ROHINI AMIN, ADVOCATE, B-705, NIRMAN APARTMENTS, R.J. MARG, PUMP HOUSE, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400093.
   PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 2 REVIEW PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 2
3. RAJESH VISHNU ADREKAR, ADVOCATE, 401, D-14, YOGI VARDHAN CHS, YOGI NAGAR ROAD, YOGI NAGAR, BORIVILI WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400092.
   PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 3 REVIEW PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 3
4. MANISHA NIMESH MEHTA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, PRESIDENT IOF MSME ASSOCIATION 1905, ROSELLA, PANT NAGAR, GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400075.
   PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 4 REVIEW PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 4
   VERSUS
5. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL, BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.
   CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 1 CONTESTING
   RESPONDENT NO. 1
6. THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT, SHER SHAH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
   CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 2 CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 2
7. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VERMA, SITTING JUDGE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATRE AT ALLAHABAD NYAYA MARG, CANTON, CANTONMENT, PRAYAGRAJ, UTTAR PRADESH 211001.
   CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 3 CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 3
8. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL OF AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, 4TH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001.
   CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 4 CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 4
9. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE (ED), THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, 6TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI.
   CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 5 CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 5
10. STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO), TULGAK ROAD POLICE STATION,
    TULGAK ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110011.
    CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 6 CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 6
11. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE HEADQUARTERS, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.
    CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 7 CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 7
12. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, THROUGHT ITS SECRETARY, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001.
    CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 8 CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 8
13. FIRE DEPARTMENT, DELHI, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, DELHI FIRE SERVICE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001.
    CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 9 CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 9
14. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
    CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 10 CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 10
15. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 11 CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO. 11

CAUSE TITLE IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025 POSITION OF PARTIES

BETWEEN: IN THIS REVIEW PETITION

1. MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA, ADVOCATE, 101, 1ST FLOOR, GUNDECHA CHAMBER, NAGINDAS ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI,
   MAHARASHTRA-400001.
   PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1
2. ROHINI AMIN, ADVOCATE, B-705, NIRMAN APARTMENTS, R.J. MARG, PUMP HOUSE, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400093.
   PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 2
3. RAJESH VISHNU ADREKAR, ADVOCATE, 401, D-14, YOGI VARDHAN CHS, YOGI NAGAR ROAD, YOGI NAGAR, BORIVILI WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400092.
   PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 3
4. MANISHA NIMESH MEHTA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, PRESIDENT IOF MSME ASSOCIATION 1905, ROSELLA, PANT NAGAR, GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400075. PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 4
   VERSUS
5. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL, BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.
   RESPONDENT NO. 1
6. THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT, SHER SHAH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
   RESPONDENT NO. 2
7. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VERMA, SITTING JUDGE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATRE AT ALLAHABAD NYAYA MARG, CANTON, CANTONMENT, PRAYAGRAJ, UTTAR PRADESH 211001.
   RESPONDENT NO. 3
8. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL OF AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, 4TH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001.
   RESPONDENT NO. 4
9. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE (ED), THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, 6TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI.
   RESPONDENT NO. 5
10. STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO), TULGAK ROAD POLICE STATION, TULGAK ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110011.
    RESPONDENT NO. 6
11. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE HEADQUARTERS, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.
    RESPONDENT NO. 7
12. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, THROUGHT ITS SECRETARY, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001.
    RESPONDENT NO. 8
13. FIRE DEPARTMENT, DELHI, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, DELHI FIRE SERVICE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001.
    RESPONDENT NO. 9
14. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003. RESPONDENT NO. 10
15. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. RESPONDENT NO. 11

REVIEW PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ORDER XLVII OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES 2013 FOR REVIEW PETITION FILED AGAINST THE FINAL IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 07.08.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025
TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE REVIEW PETITIONERS IN PERSON ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Review Petition under Article 137 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 filed against the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025, whereby this Hon’ble Court has erroneously dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners in Person herein.
2. The instant is the fourth petition/proceedings which the Petitioners lawyers and citizens are constrained to institute before this Court to set the criminal law in motion which the Delhi Police on its own was duty bound to do on being informed of large volumes of cash catching fire apparently due to a short circuit at the official residence of Justice Varma, judge of the High Court of Delhi. To be fair to the police, they would have, own their own, unfailingly registered an FIR and set the criminal law in motion and embarked upon investigation of the crime but for the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami’s case (1991 (3) SCC 655). The Supreme Court in the said case, in express terms direct that “no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154, CrPC, against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of High Court or judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter. Due regard must be given by the Government opinion expressed by the Chief Justice. If the Chief Justice is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for proceeding under the Act, case shall not be registered.”
3. The said direction contained in Paragraph 60 of the judgment is rendered per incuriam and sub silentio. This Court has no jurisdiction to direct the police not to register an FIR without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India, for to so is contrary to Section 154 of CrPC which mandates that the Police shall register an FIR on receipt of information of a commission of a cognizable offence and thereupon shall investigate the offence. Against Justice K. Veeraswami an FIR was registered and the question whether the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India was required or not did not, at all, fall for consideration before the Court. This Court for reasons difficult to be fathomed, without there being even a contest issued such directions. A record/Act of Parliament binds all. The duty of the Courts, including this Hon’ble Court, is to administer justice in accordance with law. The province of the Court is to declare the law, and not make it – Judicis est jus dicere, non-dare.
4. As aforesaid, in K. Veeraswami, Section 154 of the CrPC did not at all fall for consideration. There was, therefore, no question of interpretation of Section 154 of CrPC. With the greatest of respect, the Petitioners beg to submit that without any rhyme or reason and without any discussion whatsoever about the scope and import of Section 154 of the CrPC, the Supreme Court as if an ex-cathedra proclamation, held that no FIR shall be registered against judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts without the prior permission of the Supreme Court of India. In the Dark Ages, Pope claimed himself to be infallible, being prevented by the almighty from erring, even then he was questioned. However, ironically, in a constitutional democracy in the 21st century, the said prohibition of the Supreme Court that no FIR shall be registered against judges remains unquestioned. Many so-called jurists even claim it to be law under Article 141. The founding fathers, even in their wildest of dreams, couldn’t have thought that judgements of the law would be considered to be the law of the land. They are intended to be precedents, valid and binding if it is not in conflict with express statutory provisions. K. Veeraswami is rendered per incuriam because it is in conflict with Section 154. It is sub silentio because the Court did not at all discuss Section 154 of the CrPC. There is not even a reference, much less discussion of Section 154 in K. Veerswami which runs into over hundred pages. Nobody is bound by K. Veeraswami, not even the parties to the said case because it is a manifest error, one rendered void ab initio, per incuriam and sub silentio.
5. The Police however, could not have been blamed for ignoring K. Veeraswami and not holding it to be one rendered per incuriam because the we live in an era where even contempt of court proceedings are initiated against the police in certain cases where they are not even parties to the case. The fact that a police officer cannot be hauled up for contempt for the violation of the guidelines and observations made in judgments to which they are not parties, of which they have no direct notice, is not even raised as a defence. For the police, to be on the safer side, would be to treat every judgement and every judgment of this Court as statute, nay even above it. The Police, therefore, cannot be blamed for not registering an FIR. They can only be blamed for not seeking the permission of the Chief Justice of India. Then again, the police could not have sought the permission of the Chief Justice of India without materials and evidences. It is impossible for the police to present before the Chief Justice of India, evidence and material and seek permission for registration of FIR without conducting an investigation. And no meaningful investigation can be conducted in accordance with law without the registration of an FIR. The observations in K. Veeraswami that no FIR shall be registered without the permission of the Chief Justice of India, is absolutely preposterous. This Hon’ble Court did not address to itself the inevitable and obvious question that how can the police seek the permission of the Chief Justice to register an FIR without collecting material, how can material be collected without an investigation, how can investigation be conducted without registering an FIR. The situation is a classic catch-22 — as per K. Veeraswami, no FIR be registered without prior permission, yet such permission cannot be sought without material, which cannot be gathered without investigation, which in turn cannot commence without registration of an FIR.
6. It is in the above scenario that the Petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking the registration of an FIR and also a declaration that the observation in K. Veeraswami that no FIR shall be registered against judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court without the permission of the Chief Justice is one rendered per incuriam and sub silentio and that it shall not stand in the way of the police registering an FIR, so too, a declaration that the Committee which the CJI had constituted has no sanctity in law. A true copy of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025 filed before this Hon’ble Court on 25.07.2025 along with all annexures is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-1 (PAGES TO ). This Hon’ble Court by order dated 28.03.2025 disposed of the said writ petition merely observing that Chief Justice of India has constituted an in-house committee and that the committee is conducting an inquiry, that once the committee has submitted its report, “several options will be open for the Chief Justice of India”. The Court did not go into the plea of the Petitioner that K. Veeraswami is rendered per incuriam, observing that it is not necessary that it is not necessary to go into that aspect at this stage. A true copy of the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 15529 of 2025 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-2 (PAGES TO ).
7. The Petitioners came to know from various sources that the 3-judge in-house committee has submitted its report dated 3.5.2025 to the Chief Justice of India indicting Justice Varma and recommending his removal. The report of the committee however, was not made public. The Petitioners expected that the Committee having indicted Justice Varma, an FIR will be registered and the criminal law will be set in motion. However, the Petitioners were made to understand that their hopes were misplaced, no FIR will be registered. The Petitioners accordingly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 a second time, seeking the same reliefs as well as the publication of the report of the committee. The said writ petition was substantially along the same lines as the earlier one, and hence a copy is not produced. The Petitioners therefore, crave for the leave of this Hon’ble Court to produce the same across if deemed necessary. This Hon’ble Court by order dated 21.5.2025 was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition pointing out that the Chief Justice of India on 8.5.2025 has forwarded the report of the in-house committee along with Justice Varma’s response to their Excellencies, the President of India and the Prime Minister. The Court without making any reference to the impediment caused by K. Veeraswami in the registration of an FIR was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition observing that the Petitioners will have to approach the authorities. The Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami had directed that if an FIR were to be registered against a judge of a High Court or Supreme Court, “due regard must be given by the Government by the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of India”. In the course of the hearing, this Court in unmistakable terms made it clear that if they so desire make representations to the President/Prime Minister. A true copy of the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 534 of 2025 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-3 (PAGES TO ).
8. The Petitioners in no loss of time preferred representations to the Prime Minister, the President, the Home Minister, et al. seeking registration of an FIR. A true copy of the Representation dated 26.05.2025 sent by the Petitioner No. 1 herein to the Hon’ble President of India, New Delhi without annexures is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-4 (PAGES TO ).
9. While matters stood thus, the report of the Committee came to be available in the public domain. A true copy of the report of the committee is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-5 (PAGES TO ).
10. The Committee which took evidence from 13 officers of the Fire Force, 15 officers of the Delhi Police, 6 members of the CRPF and 16 members of the staff attached to the residence/office of Justice Varma. In the report, the committee indicted Justice Varma holding that huge volumes of currency kept in plastic bags caught fire, the videos of the same were taken by many of the fire men and police officials, that the outhouse was in the exclusive control of Justice Varma and his family and that Justice Varma and his trusted personal staff had the burned and unburned currency notes surreptitiously removed from the scene on the wee hours of 15.3.2025 and thereby destroyed the incriminating material and prevented the police from securing the area. The Committee found that Justice Varma had no valid explanation for not reporting the crime to the Police, seeking registration of an FIR and investigation of the crime, which was his duty, particularly in view of the fact that the only explanation Justice Varma had to offer is that the money was planted by someone to falsely implicate him.
11. The Petitioners waited for weeks and months after having made a representation to the Government, however, there was no prospect of the criminal law being set in motion. The Petitioner therefore, invoked Article 32 a third time for the very same relief for the registration of an FIR, nay setting the criminal law in motion which is so fundamental lest there should be no rule of law. This Court, by judgment dated 7.8.2025 dismissed the same.
12. This Court has offered two reasons for dismissing the writ petition. Firstly, that the Petitioners could not, despite repeated queries, bring to the Court’s notice the representation dated 26.5.2025. Second, that it was the duty of the Petitioner to have produced a copy of the representation which they have preferred as laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana.
13. The said finding of this Court is absolutely erroneous. The Petitioners did indeed prefer a representation to the President dated 26.5.2025. The said representation is produced as Annexure P-5 at page number 118 in the writ petition. It is only appropriate to extract the relevant parts of paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition which in crystal clear terms establish that the Petitioners had indeed made a reference to the representation made to the President, Prime Minister, Home Minister and others:
    “12. … The Petitioners made representations to their Excellencies, the President and the Prime Minister. A true copy of the representation dated 26.5.2025 sent by the Petitioner no. 1 herein to the Hon’ble President of India, New Delhi, without annexures is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-5 (Pages 118 to 122). The representation to the Hon’ble Prime Minister is identical to that addressed to the President. The Petitioners therefore, crave the leave of this Court to produce the same across the bar, if deemed necessary.
14. The Petitioners have also made a representation to the Hon’ble Ministers in charge of Home, Law and Parliamentary affairs. The Petitioners have not received any communication from the office of any of the dignitaries except from that of the President”
15. What the Court found fault with the Petitioners is their inability to bring to the notice of the Court the said representation despite repeated queries. The representation is very much a part of the writ petition and the Petitioners had brought the same to the notice of the Court repeatedly during the course of hearing. However, in the judgement which was reserved, when drawn, the Court omitted to take notice of the same. The second fault which the Court found was that the said representation was not produced as mandated in Bharat Singh. To repeat, the representation was part of the petition as Annexure P-5 thereto. This Court dismissed the petition finding fault with the Petitioners for an error or wrong which they did not commit. This error goes to the root of the matter, and is an error apparent on the face of record. Actus curiae neminem gravabitis a fundamental principle of law. It was an error on the part of the Court while drawing the judgement in Court to take notice of Annexure P-5 representation which was a part and parcel of the writ petition and to dismiss the petition on the sole ground that the Petitioners have not produced the said representation along with the writ petition and could not bring it to the Court’s notice. The Petitioner no. 1 who appeared as party in person for himself and the other petitioners brought the same to the notice of the Court repeatedly. It is therefore, the duty of the Court to rectify the error and to do justice ex debito justitiae. The registration of an FIR which the Petitioners have sought is in the discharge of their duty as lawyers and citizens, the reliefs sought were not based on contract or any private law, on the contrary, what they sought was a public law remedy, a mandamus, akin to a qui tam or relator action. Even assuming that there was a lapse on the Petitioners’ part to make a representation or produce a copy thereof, that would not stand in the way of the said relief being granted nor would it be a justification for dismissing the petition.
16. There is no need for the Petitioner to inform the police, it is the police who informed the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court of the incident. It is the failure on the part of the police to register an FIR despite being in the possession of information disclosing the occurrence of a cognisable offense, namely, money laundering, bribe, corruption. Nonetheless, the Petitioners have preferred a representation a complaint to the police annexing therewith a report of the committee which is very much in the public domain which also speaks of the examination of 15 members from the police force.
17. This Hon’ble Court failed in its duty to do justice. The crime of corruption, money laundering which had occurred came to be discovered when the huge volumes of money went up in flames on 15.3.2025. The orders passed by this Court in the three writ petitions as aforesaid, in hindsight, has only unwittingly resulted in the delay in the investigation of the humongous crime, evidence being lost, crime scene not being secured, causing grave prejudice to public interest. What is at jeopardy is the concept of that the penal laws of the land apply equally to all, equality before law and equal protection of law, nay, the concept of rule of law. This Court as the guardian and protector of rule of law is duty bound to rectify its own mistake ex debito justitiae and it can be done treating this petition itself as petition under Article 32, a Review Petition under Article 137 or even suo motu. In the humble opinion of the Petitioners the only occasion where this Court can invoke its inherent suo powers are instances of grave miscarriage of justice arising out of its own errors as in the instant case. For, the Court cannot be an actor and judex at the same time This Court dismissed the Petitioners case offering reasons which are ex facie erroneous, one which does not require elaborate scrutiny to realise.
    GROUNDS
    A. In Justice Varma’s case, money laundering, corruption and other criminal offences which were not otherwise known to the world, came to be revealed as a result of an accidental fire. The Police came to the scene and the Commissioner of Police reported the crime to the Chief Justice of India. Therefore, there is no need for anyone to inform or report to the police for the criminal law in motion. The Police did not register an FIR and start investigation because the 5-judge constitution bench in K. Veeraswami prohibited the police from registering an FIR against a judge of the High Court/Supreme Court without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice on being informed of the crime, ought to have directed the police to register an FIR and set the criminal law in motion. The Chief Justice instead uploaded the images and videos of the burned cash on the website of the Court and constituted a committee for investigation. The Petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court repeatedly since the criminal law was not set in motion. All the three petitions which the Petitioners instituted were dismissed without going into the merits of the case. The resultant scenario today is that the criminal law remains to be set in motion and those who committed such grave offences such as money laundering and corruption – the bribe giver, bribe taker, fixers, brokers, all remain unscathed. The only consequence which Justice Varma seems to face today is impeachment, a purely civil proceedings which can result in his removal from office and in case he resigns in the meanwhile, he will be entitled to pension and other retiral benefits. This Court was duty bound to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus because the Police inspite of receipt of information (including the report of the committee) of the commission of a cognizable offense has failed to set the criminal law in motion. This Court instead dismissed the Petitioners’ plea finding them to be at fault of not producing a copy of the representation which they indeed had produced.
18. That this Review Petition is the First Review Petition filed against the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025.
    PRAYER
    It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to;
    a) Allow the present Review Petition filed against the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025; and
    b) Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
    AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINIDNESS THE REVIEW PETITIONER IN PERSONS SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
    Drawn & Filed by:

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
REVIEW PETITIONER PARTY-IN-PERSON NO. 1
MOB. 9820535428
Drawn on: 16.08.2025
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 16.08.2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mathews J. Nedumpara, Advocate and Review Petitioner in Persons No. 1, Having Office at 101, 1st Floor, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001, Presently at Mumbai, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. I am the Review Petitioner in Persons No. 1 in the above-mentioned Review Petition, and as such I am well conversant with the facts of the case and thus competent to swear this affidavit on behalf of other Review Petitioners in Persons also.
2. I say that the I have read and understood the contents of the Synopsis and Review Petition at Pages _ to and contents of Para to and connected applications at Pages to _ and state that the facts mentioned therein are true to my knowledge and belief and information derived from the records of the case as per the legal advice received and believed by me. I say that the facts and circumstances stated in the Review Petition and connected applications are true and correct.
3. That the annexures filed along with this Review Petition are true copies of their respective originals.
4. I say that the averments of facts stated herein above are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I the above-named deponent affirms that the contents of Para 1 to 4 of this affidavit are true and correct to best of my knowledge and belief and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.
Verified at Mumbai, Maharashtra on this the 16th day of August, 2025.

DEPONENT
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
CERTIFICATE
It is certified that the instant Review Petition is first application for Review filed by the Review Petitioner in Persons herein and the grounds urged in the instant Review Petition are grounds admissible under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. This certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the Petitioner, whose affidavit is filed in support of the instant Review Petition.
Filed by:

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
REVIEW PETITIONER PARTY-IN-PERSON NO. 1
MOB. 9820535428
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 16.08.2025

 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2025
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REVIEW PETITION FILED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT AS PARTY IN PERSONS
TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE REVIEW PETITIONERS IN PERSONS ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Review Petition under Article 137 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 filed against the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025, whereby this Hon’ble Court has erroneously dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners in Persons herein.
2. That the Review Petitioners in Person herein have not engaged the services of an Advocate on Record as the Petitioner is well conversant and can diligently assist the court, and the Petitioner in Person herein wishes to pursue the matter as in Person.
3. That the Review Petitioners in Person are trying to put forth all the facts, circumstances and observations in the form of this Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
4. That the present application is being made in the interest of justice and no prejudice shall be caused to any party if the present application is allowed.
5. That in light of the above, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Applicant.
6. That the Review Petitioner in Person No. 1 as an Advocate by profession and therefore, no advocates / amicus curie no required in this case.
   PRAYER
   It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
   a) Allow the present Application and permit the Review Petitioner in Person No. 1 for self and on behalf of all the Petitioners, to appear and argue the above-mentioned Writ Petition in Person before this Hon’ble Court being the SPA Holder; and
   b) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
   AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE REVIEW PETITIONERS IN PERSON SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
   Filed by:

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
REVIEW PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1
9820535428
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 16.08.2025

 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2025
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE REVIEW PETITIONERS IN PERSONS ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Review Petition under Article 137 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 filed against the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025, whereby this Hon’ble Court has erroneously dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners in Persons herein.
2. That the facts of the case have been fully set out in the Review Petition. It is submitted that the facts stated in the Review Petition may be treated as part of this Application.
3. In view of the various submissions made by the Review Petitioners. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble court may have the indulgence to allow this Application.
   PRAYER
   In the circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
   (i) Allow this application and exempt the Review Petitioner in Persons from filing the certified copy of impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025; and
   (ii) Pass such other and further relief, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
   AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE REVIEW PETITIONERS IN PERSON SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
   Filed by:

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
REVIEW PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1
9820535428
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 16.08.2025

 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2025
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR ORAL HEARING OF REVIEW PETITION IN OPEN COURT
TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE REVIEW PETITIONERS IN PERSONS ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Review Petition under Article 137 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 filed against the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025, whereby this Hon’ble Court has erroneously dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners in Persons herein.
2. That the facts of the case have been fully set out in the Review Petition. It is submitted that the facts stated in the Review Petition may be treated as part of this Application.
3. It is submitted that the Review Petitioner in Persons has narrated all the reasons to establish that the judgment of this Hon’ble Court suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. The same are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
4. In view of the various submissions made by the Review Petitioners in Persons. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble court may have the indulgence to allow oral hearing of the Review Petition in the interest of justice.
   PRAYER
   In the circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
   (i) Allow the present application for oral hearing of the Review Petition against the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025; and
   (ii) Pass such other and further relief, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
   AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE REVIEW PETITIONERS IN PERSON SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY. Filed by:

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
REVIEW PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1
9820535428
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 16.08.2025

SECTION-X
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 706 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
INDEX
Sl. No. Description Copies C. Fee
1 Office Report on Limitation 1
2 Synopsis 1
3 Copy of the final impugned judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025. 1
4 Review Petition with affidavit 1
5 Annexure P-1 to P-5 1
6 I.A. NO. OF 2025
Application for permission to appear and argue the above-mentioned Review Petition filed before this Hon’ble Court as Party in Person. 1
7 I.A. NO. OF 2025
Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the final impugned judgment. 1
8 I.A. NO. OF 2025
Application for oral hearing of Review Petition in open court. 1
Total 8
Filed by:

Mathews J. Nedumpara
Review Petitioner In Person No.1,
101, 1st Floor, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra
Mob. No. 9820535428
E-Mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
Dated: 16.08.2025
Place: New Delhi