‘Cheap Publicity’: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking SIT Probe Into Former Delhi HC Judge Yashwant Varma Episode

New Delhi, August 7, 2026: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a lawyer’s petition seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) and a court-monitored probe by a special investigation team (SIT) into the “burnt currency” incident involving former Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe described the petition as an attempt at “cheap publicity” and declined to entertain it. The court’s sharp observation brought an abrupt end to another attempt to seek a criminal investigation into the cash allegedly recovered following a fire at Varma’s residence, Bar & Bench reported.

Court Calls It ‘Cheap Publicity’

Petitioner Ghanshyam Upadhayay argued that Varma’s resignation from office did not erase any criminal liability arising from the alleged recovery of unaccounted money from his residence.

“Earlier, a similar petition was dismissed on the technical ground that no complaint was filed before filing the petition. That is done now. A judge of the high court has been held to be a public servant. Now he is retired also. There is no immunity from prosecution,” Upadhayay submitted.

The Bench, however, was not persuaded. “All cheap publicity. We are not inclined to entertain this. Dismissed,” the Supreme Court said.

The dismissal is significant because the controversy surrounding Varma has already led to an in-house judicial inquiry and proceedings for his removal. The latest petition sought to take the matter into the realm of a criminal investigation, but the Supreme Court declined to allow that route through this plea.

Fire That Sparked The Controversy

The episode dates back to the evening of March 14, when a fire at Varma’s house allegedly led to the recovery of unaccounted cash. Varma and his wife were travelling in Madhya Pradesh at the time, while his daughter and aged mother were at home when the fire broke out.

A video subsequently surfaced showing bundles of cash burning in the fire. The incident triggered allegations of corruption against Varma. He denied the accusations and said it appeared to be a conspiracy to frame him.

The controversy quickly moved beyond the alleged cash recovery, raising serious questions within the judiciary and prompting an institutional response from the Chief Justice of India.

In-House Probe Follows Allegations

The Chief Justice of India initiated an in-house inquiry into the allegations and constituted a three-member committee on March 22.

The committee comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman. It began its inquiry on March 25 and submitted its report to then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on May 4.

After receiving the committee’s report, the CJI asked Varma to resign or face removal proceedings. Varma declined to step down at that stage, following which the CJI forwarded the report and the judge’s response to the President of India and the Prime Minister for his removal.

Following the allegations, Varma was transferred back to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court. His judicial work was also withdrawn pending further action.

Removal Process Gathers Pace

In August 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla initiated the process to remove Varma by constituting a three-member panel to investigate the allegations against him.

The committee initially comprised Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and Senior Advocate BV Acharya. Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar subsequently replaced Justice Shrivastava, who retired on March 6.

In January this year, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the inquiry proceedings against Varma. It ruled that the Lok Sabha Speaker was legally entitled to constitute the Judges Inquiry Committee.

Varma eventually tendered his resignation in April this year before the removal process could be completed.

Resignation Does Not End Controversy

Varma’s resignation may have ended his tenure as a judge, but it has not put the controversy to rest. Upadhayay’s petition sought to keep alive the question of possible criminal liability by pressing for an FIR and an SIT investigation.

Also Watch:

The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the plea, and particularly its “cheap publicity” remark, makes its view of this petition unmistakable. At the same time, the long sequence of events, from the March 14 fire and the in-house inquiry to the removal proceedings and Varma’s eventual resignation, shows why the episode continues to attract legal and public attention.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/