Summary and Analysis of Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Supreme Court of India & Ors (2025) INSC 941 (Non-Reportable)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Supreme Court of India & Ors.

Citation:
(2025) INSC 941 (Non-Reportable)

2. Relevant Laws and Provisions

1. Constitution of India:
   Article 32: Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.

2. Statutory Law:
   Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Mandates FIR registration for cognizable offences.

3. Judicial Precedent:
   K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655: Requires police to consult the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before registering an FIR against judges.

3. Basic Case Details

Parties:

• Petitioners:
  Mathews J. Nedumpara (advocate, appearing in person).
  Two other advocates.
  One chartered accountant.

• Respondents: Supreme Court of India, Delhi Police, and Union of India.

Background:

• Incident: Fire at the residence of a Delhi High Court Judge (March 2025), leading to the discovery of burnt currency notes.

• Petitioners’ Grievance:
  Sought registration of an FIR and investigation into the incident.
  Challenged the precedent in K. Veeraswami (1991), arguing it violates the BNSS, 2023.

• Procedural History:
  First Petition (March 28, 2025): Dismissed as an in-house inquiry was ongoing.
  Second Petition (May 21, 2025): Dismissed for not approaching authorities first.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Issues Decided:

1. Validity of Petitioners’ Claim:
   Petitioners’ Argument:
   K. Veeraswami (requiring CJI consultation for FIR registration against judges) is ultra vires the BNSS, 2023, which mandates immediate FIR registration for cognizable offences.
   The precedent is "per incuriam" (legally flawed) and should be overruled.
   Court’s Response:
   Did not examine this issue due to petitioners’ procedural lapses and abuse of process.

2. Petitioners’ Conduct and Procedural Lapses:
   False Claim of Representation:
   Petitioners asserted they filed a representation to police on May 26, 2025, as directed by the court’s May 21 order.
   Court’s Finding:
   No proof of the representation was produced (Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana cited).
   This amounted to an "incorrect statement on oath".
   Abuse of Process:
   Filing a third petition despite earlier dismissals and failure to follow court directions.
   Liberty granted on May 21 to approach authorities was ignored.

3. Failure to Exhaust Remedies:
   The May 21, 2025, order directed petitioners to approach authorities before seeking mandamus.
   Petitioners bypassed this step, making the petition premature.

Final Outcome:

• Writ Petition Dismissed on two grounds:
  Abuse of Judicial Process: For filing repetitive petitions without compliance.
  False Affidavit: Misrepresenting submission of a non-existent representation.

• No Costs Imposed.

5. Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed

1. Exhaustion of Remedies:
   Mandamus under Article 32 is not maintainable if alternative remedies (e.g., approaching police) are unexhausted.

2. Truthfulness in Pleadings:
   Litigants must provide evidence for factual claims (Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana). False statements invite dismissal.

3. Judicial Precedent:
   While K. Veeraswami was challenged, the court avoided ruling on its validity due to petitioners’ procedural lapses.

Significance:
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s zero tolerance for frivolous litigation and false affidavits, prioritizing procedural discipline over substantive debates in such cases.

Citations:

• K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655

• Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1988) 4 SCC 534