The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to list on an urgent basis, a petition seeking registration of an FIR against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi on March 14.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih directed lawyer-petitioner Mathews Nedumpara to follow the mentioning procedure.
Earlier, former CJI Sanjiv Khanna had stopped the oral mentioning for urgent listing and hearing of cases. He had directed the lawyers and litigants to write an email and first move the Apex Court Registry.
Justice Varma courted controversy following the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi during a firefighting operation on March 14.
Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member committee to initiate an in-house probe against Justice Varma on March 22.
The panel comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman. It started investigations on March 25 and submitted its report to the CJI on May 3.
The in-house panel reportedly indicted Justice Varma, after which former CJI Khanna asked Justice Varma to either tender his resignation or face impeachment proceedings.
Following his refusal to resign, former CJI Khanna forwarded the in-house committee report to the President of India and the Prime Minister for further action.
A statement issued by the Supreme Court on May 9 said that former CJI Khanna had written a letter to the President and the Prime Minister, enclosing a copy of the three-member Committee report dated May 3, 2025, along with the letter/response dated May 6, 2025, received from Justice Yashwant Varma.
Filed by Nedumpara and three others, the petition called for immediate initiation of criminal proceedings, saying the in-house committee found the allegations against Justice Varma to be prima facie true.
It contended that while the internal inquiry might lead to judicial disciplinary action, it was no substitute for a criminal investigation under the applicable statutes.
Earlier in March this year, the same petitioners had approached the Apex Court, challenging the in-house inquiry and demanding a formal police investigation.
The Apex Court had, however, dismissed the plea as premature, citing the pending nature of the internal proceedings. With the inquiry now concluded, the petitioners asserted that a delay in criminal action was no longer tenable.
On March 14, a fire broke out at the official residence of Justice Varma. While the firefighters were extinguishing the blaze, they accidentally recovered a huge stash of cash in the outhouse of the residence. At the time of the incident, Justice Varma and his wife were not in Delhi. Only his daughter and mother were at home.
A video later surfaced showing bundles of notes burning in the fire. The incident led to a huge uproar across the country and allegations of corruption against Justice Varma, who denied the charges and alleged that it was a conspiracy to frame him.
The video of the burnt cash was shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner with the Chief Justice of the High Court. In an unprecedented development, the Supreme Court made public the video and a preliminary report of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice on the incident, along with Justice Varma’s response.
On the judicial side, the Apex Court refused to entertain a plea seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Justice Varma, stating that the in-house panel was yet to submit its report.
Justice Varma was repatriated to his parent High Court, the Allahabad High Court, where he recently took oath.
The judicial work of the judge, however, has been temporarily taken away on the instructions of the CJI. The Allahabad High Court Bar Association had earlier gone on strike against Justice Varma’s repatriation.