The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking a court-monitored criminal investigation into allegations of unaccounted cash being discovered at the official residence of former Allahabad high court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, describing the plea as an attempt at “cheap publicity”.
A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to entertain the petition filed by advocate Ghanshyam Upadhayay, who sought registration of a first information report (FIR) and constitution of a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the alleged recovery of cash from Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi in March 2025.
“All cheap publicity. We are not inclined to entertain this…Dismissed,” observed the bench.
The petitioner argued that Justice Varma’s resignation did not wipe out any criminal liability arising out of the allegations. He submitted that an earlier petition seeking similar relief had been dismissed on technical grounds because no formal complaint had been lodged with the investigating agencies before approaching the court.
“Now that a complaint has been filed, and since a high court judge has been held to be a public servant and Justice Varma has also demitted office, there is no immunity from prosecution,” the petitioner said.
The controversy began in March 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi while he was serving as a judge of the Delhi high court. Justice Varma and his wife were travelling in Madhya Pradesh at the time, while his daughter and elderly mother were at the house. Videos purportedly showing bundles of currency notes burning in the fire surfaced.
{{/usCountry}}The controversy began in March 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi while he was serving as a judge of the Delhi high court. Justice Varma and his wife were travelling in Madhya Pradesh at the time, while his daughter and elderly mother were at the house. Videos purportedly showing bundles of currency notes burning in the fire surfaced.
{{/usCountry}}Justice Varma denied any knowledge or ownership of the cash, describing the allegations as a conspiracy to malign him and maintaining that neither he nor any member of his family had placed money at the site.
The then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member in-house inquiry committee, comprising Punjab and Haryana high court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh high court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka high court judge Justice Anu Sivaraman, to examine the allegations.
The panel submitted its report in May 2025, finding Justice Varma’s explanation unsatisfactory. Acting on the report, CJI Khanna asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. After he declined to step down, the CJI forwarded the inquiry report along with Justice Varma’s response to the President and the Prime Minister, recommending initiation of the constitutional process for his removal.
Justice Varma was also repatriated to his parent Allahabad high court, and judicial work was withdrawn from him pending further action.
The developments led to the initiation of removal proceedings in Parliament. In July 2025, notices signed by members of Parliament were moved in both Houses seeking his removal. While the Lok Sabha admitted the motion and subsequently constituted a Judges Inquiry Committee. The Rajya Sabha declined to admit a parallel motion citing procedural infirmities.
Justice Varma resigned in April this year while the parliamentary inquiry was underway.
As reported by HT on July 6, following his resignation on April 9, Justice Varma surrendered the official amenities and privileges attached to judicial office, ceased to draw judicial salary while pension and other terminal benefits have not yet been released, revived his enrolment with the Bar Council and is now legally entitled under the applicable regulatory framework to resume private legal practice at any time.
This year, the Supreme Court refused Justice Varma’s plea to interfere with the inquiry proceedings initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, holding that the Lok Sabha Speaker was competent to constitute the inquiry committee.
Last month, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla informed the House that the government decided to table the inquiry committee’s report on Justice Varma when Parliament reconvened for the Monsoon Session on July 20. The report is yet to be laid before Parliament.
In the petition dismissed on Friday, Upadhayay claimed that despite submitting a detailed complaint on June 2 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Delhi Police and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), no FIR had been registered. The plea argued that the material available in the public domain, including official statements by the Supreme Court, documents relating to the in-house inquiry, photographs, videos and the petitioner’s complaint, disclosed cognisable offences warranting a criminal investigation.
It contended that institutional mechanisms such as an in-house inquiry or impeachment proceedings address only the question of a judge’s continuance in office and cannot substitute ordinary criminal process, where cognisable offences are alleged.