SC turns down urgent mention of plea for FIR on Justice Varma case

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on Wednesday refused an urgent mentioning of a petition seeking the registration of a first information report (FIR) and an investigation into the discovery of cash at the official residence of Delhi high court judge Yashwant Varma.

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who filed the plea, sought an expedited listing, but CJI Khanna declined to entertain the oral request, directing him to follow the standard procedure and submit an email outlining the urgency of the case.

A co-petitioner in the case, advocate Hemali Suresh Kurne, appearing in person, alleged that the law enforcement agencies would have gone after the person concerned had it not been for the position of a judge.

The plea, filed before the Supreme Court on Monday, demands that the Delhi police register an FIR and conduct a thorough probe into allegations that a substantial amount of unaccounted cash was found at justice Varma’s residence on March 14. The money was discovered after fire brigade officials arrived to douse a fire at his bungalow while the judge was in Bhopal.

The petition questions why no immediate legal action was taken, alleging that the delay in disclosing details of the recovery points to a possible cover-up. “Why were no arrests made? Why was the money not seized? Why was a proper mahazar (recovery memo) not prepared? Why was criminal law not set into motion?”

Justice Yashwant Varma has strongly denied any connection to the cash allegedly found at his residence, claiming that he is being framed .

The petition, however, argues that if the money was not his, he should have immediately reported the matter to the police and sought an FIR for an attempt to falsely implicate him. “Filing an FIR, even belatedly, is necessary to allow the police to investigate the conspiracy aspect of the case.”

Calling it an “open and shut case” of judicial corruption, the petition claims that the presence of unaccounted cash suggests black money accumulated through the “sale of justice.” It also questions the jurisdiction of the three-member panel set up by the Supreme Court collegium to investigate the matter, arguing that the alleged offences fall under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and should be probed by law enforcement authorities.

The plea further challenges the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench ruling in K Veeraswami Vs Union of India (1991), which requires the CJI’s approval before registering a criminal case against a high court or Supreme Court judge. “This direction creates a special class of judges, immune from the penal laws of the land, and has even prevented FIRs from being registered in cases involving POCSO,” the petition states.

On Saturday, CJI Khanna constituted a three-member in-house inquiry panel to investigate the allegations relating to reported discovery of cash at the Delhi residence of justice Varma. The panel comprises justice Sheel Nagu, chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana high court; justice GS Sandhawalia, chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh high court; and justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka high court.

The judge has also been de-rostered. “The Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi has been directed not to assign any judicial work to justice Varma,” read a statement issued by the Supreme Court administration on Saturday night.

This decision followed a recommendation by Delhi high court chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya for an in-house inquiry . On Saturday morning, justice Upadhyaya met with officials from the Delhi Police, Delhi Fire Services (DFS), and the Supreme Court’s vigilance department before submitting an additional report to the CJI. This report resulted in the institution of the inquiry panel.

The panel’s task is to examine the circumstances surrounding the cash discovery and assess whether justice Varma’s continuation as a judge is tenable.

The in-house inquiry gained momentum on Tuesday when the three-judge panel visited justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi from where the cash was discovered on March 14. The committee spent around 45 minutes inspecting different areas of the house.

The controversy stems from a reported fire at Justice Varma’s official residence on Tughlak Road on March 14 at around 11:35 pm. While DFS officials extinguished the fire within minutes, first responders—including DFS personnel and possibly the police— discovered stacks of cash in a storeroom, some of which were reportedly charred. Justice Varma and his wife were in Bhopal at the time.

On March 20, the Supreme Court collegium unanimously recommended transferring justice Varma to the Allahabad high court—his parent high court. However, during deliberations, at least two members argued that a mere transfer was insufficient and pushed for an immediate in-house inquiry. One judge insisted that justice Varma be stripped of judicial work immediately, while another pressed for a formal investigation to ensure institutional accountability.

On March 24, the collegium formalised its decision to transfer justice Varma back to the Allahabad high court and issued a resolution recommending his repatriation. But this decision has sparked resistance from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA), which has questioned whether the court is being used as a “dumping ground” for judges facing controversy. It has called for the judge to be impeached. “Lawyers of the high court bar association, Allahabad will go on an indefinite strike from Tuesday following justice Yashwant Varma’s transfer to Allahabad high court,” bar body chief Anil Tiwari told news agency PTI on Monday.

The controversy reverberated in Parliament too. On March 21, in the Rajya Sabha, chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar responded to Congress MP Jairam Ramesh’s call for greater judicial accountability, stating that he would explore mechanisms for structured discussions on the issue. Dhankhar on Monday held a meeting with leader of the House JP Nadda and Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge, and lauded CJI Khanna, saying he initiated action in a “very impactful, transparent manner”.