New Delhi, August 7, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking registration of an FIR against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the alleged cash discovery controversy, describing it as a “publicity interest litigation”.
A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to entertain the plea filed by advocate Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay, noting that similar petitions seeking criminal action against Justice Varma had already been rejected by the apex court.
The matter was initially listed before a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu. However, since Justice Nagu was part of the three-member in-house inquiry committee that examined the allegations against Justice Varma, the case was transferred to another Bench.
The petition sought directions for registration of an FIR against Justice Varma over the alleged discovery of burnt currency notes at an outhouse attached to his official residence in New Delhi during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge.
The petitioner argued that since Justice Varma had resigned from office in April this year, he no longer enjoyed protection from criminal proceedings.
The controversy originated on March 14, 2025, when burnt currency notes were allegedly found in a storeroom attached to Justice Varma’s official residence after firefighters responded to a fire incident. Following the incident, Justice Varma was transferred back to the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court constituted a three-member in-house inquiry committee.
The committee, in its report, concluded that there was direct and electronic evidence suggesting that the storeroom was under the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family. It termed the allegations as proved misconduct serious enough to warrant removal proceedings under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
Based on the findings, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna forwarded recommendations to the President and the Prime Minister for initiating impeachment proceedings.
Justice Varma had challenged the in-house inquiry process, alleging that the procedure was unconstitutional and that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. However, the Supreme Court rejected his challenge in July, holding that the in-house mechanism was “fair and just” and did not undermine judicial independence.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih had earlier observed that the in-house inquiry was preliminary and ad hoc in nature and did not itself constitute a removal mechanism for judges. The court also held that the Chief Justice of India was not merely a “post office” while forwarding such reports to constitutional authorities.
The Supreme Court further ruled that the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 did not prevent internal disciplinary mechanisms such as the in-house procedure.
Following the inquiry report, impeachment proceedings were initiated in Parliament after notices were submitted with the support of 145 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members. A three-member inquiry committee was subsequently constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Justice Varma challenged the formation of the parliamentary panel, arguing that since notices were submitted in both Houses simultaneously, the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman were required to act jointly. The Supreme Court, however, rejected his plea.
Amid the proceedings, Justice Varma submitted his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu, stating that he was stepping down with “deep anguish”. He also withdrew from the parliamentary inquiry, alleging procedural irregularities and denial of a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Justice Varma has maintained that there was no evidence connecting him with the alleged cash and claimed that the proceedings were based on assumptions rather than proof. His resignation is reportedly yet to be accepted, and his name continues to appear among sitting judges on the Allahabad High Court’s official website.
FOLLOW NOW
