The Supreme Court on Friday, 7 August 2026, dismissed a petition seeking registration of an FIR and a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma over the alleged recovery of burnt and unaccounted currency notes from his official residence in New Delhi, as reported in LawBeat.
A Bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to entertain the petition filed by advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay, observing that the plea appeared to have been filed for publicity.
“All cheap publicity. We are not inclined to entertain this. Dismissed,” the Bench observed.
The plea sought criminal action against Justice Varma over the alleged discovery of semi-burnt and unburnt currency notes following a fire at his official residence in Lutyens’ Delhi on 14 March 2025.
Plea Sought FIR And CBI-Led SIT Probe
Appearing in person, Upadhyay argued that an in-house judicial inquiry was insufficient in a matter involving an alleged cognisable offence and that the police should instead register an FIR and conduct a criminal investigation.
He sought a direction for an independent SIT headed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
Upadhyay further argued that Justice Varma’s resignation from judicial office did not extinguish any criminal liability arising from the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash. He submitted that a High Court judge is a public servant and that resignation or retirement would not confer immunity from prosecution.
According to the petition, an earlier plea had been dismissed on the ground that no complaint had been filed before approaching the Supreme Court. Upadhyay claimed that this procedural requirement had subsequently been complied with.
The Bench, however, declined to entertain the petition.
Cash Discovery At Justice Varma’s Residence
The controversy dates back to 14 March 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in New Delhi while he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
Justice Varma was not present at the residence at the time. His family members reportedly called emergency services following the fire, after which firefighters and police reached the premises.
During the firefighting operation, semi-burnt and unburnt currency notes were reportedly found in a storeroom.
The discovery triggered allegations concerning the presence of unaccounted cash at the judge’s official residence. Justice Varma strongly denied the allegations and disputed claims that a large pile of cash had been found at his house.
Supreme Court Panel Found Substance In Allegations
The then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, constituted a three-member judicial inquiry committee to examine the allegations.
The panel examined more than 55 witnesses and reportedly found substance in the allegations concerning the presence of burnt and unburnt currency at Justice Varma’s residence.
Its findings reportedly indicated that the storeroom where the burnt cash was discovered was under the active control of Justice Varma and his family.
The inquiry eventually resulted in a recommendation for Justice Varma’s removal on grounds of misconduct.
Earlier, the Bombay Lawyers Association had also approached the Chief Justice of India seeking sanction to initiate criminal prosecution against Justice Varma.
Transfer To Allahabad High Court And Resignation
The controversy also led to administrative action against Justice Varma.
Following meetings held on 20 March and 24 March 2025, the Supreme Court decided to transfer him from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Varma was removed from active judicial duty on 23 March 2025, amid the controversy.
He subsequently took oath as a judge of the Allahabad High Court on 5 April 2025 but resigned from judicial office on 19 April 2025.
His resignation came as parliamentary proceedings seeking his removal were already underway.
Impeachment Proceedings Also Initiated
The matter subsequently moved to Parliament.
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted a three-member inquiry committee after admitting a motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal, reportedly supported by 146 Members of Parliament.
The parliamentary process followed the findings of the Supreme Court-appointed inquiry panel.
The Centre subsequently moved towards initiating an impeachment motion against Justice Varma, with government sources indicating that efforts were being made to build consensus across party lines before the motion was tabled.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju was expected to hold discussions with leaders of various political parties to garner support for the move.
Justice Varma’s resignation, however, did not automatically bring the proceedings to an end. According to the material, President Droupadi Murmu is yet to accept his resignation, leaving open the possibility of further action.
Supreme Court Declines To Order Criminal Probe
The fresh plea sought to pursue criminal proceedings separately from the judicial inquiry and parliamentary process.
Upadhyay maintained that the alleged recovery of cash warranted a police investigation and that the existence of an in-house judicial inquiry could not substitute for an FIR where a cognisable offence was suspected.
The Supreme Court, however, refused to entertain the plea and dismissed it with the observation, “All cheap publicity. We are not inclined to entertain this. Dismissed.”
The dismissal leaves the petitioner’s request for an FIR and a Supreme Court-monitored CBI-led SIT probe without judicial relief from the apex court.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
