Delhi HC Calls Justice Varma Cash Probe Plea 'Wild Witch Hunt', Refuses To Entertain It

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) and an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged discovery of cash at the official residence of former Justice Yashwant Varma.

Justice Amit Bansal questioned the locus of petitioner and advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay and pointed out that he had an alternative remedy of approaching the Delhi Police and subsequently the competent magistrate. “I am not entertaining this sir. This is a wild witch hunt. You have nothing better to do?” the Court remarked, Live Law and Bar & Bench report.

‘Magistrate Cannot Order CBI Probe’

Upadhyay, who appeared in person, argued that the case was of an “extraordinary nature” and that a magistrate would not be competent to deal with it. “He [magistrate] cannot direct the CBI or SIT inquiry. Magistrate or special court will not be competent to deal with the matter,” he said.

Central Government Standing Counsel Premtosh Kumar Mishra, appearing for the Union of India and the CBI, opposed the petition. He said Upadhyay had earlier approached the Supreme Court, which had rejected his plea. Mishra also argued that Upadhyay had no locus and could first approach the Delhi Police and then the competent magistrate.

High Court Points To Alternative Remedy

After considering the matter, the High Court declined to entertain the petition. Upadhyay sought permission to withdraw it with liberty to pursue alternative remedies, following which the plea was rejected.

The order makes clear that the High Court was not examining Justice Varma’s guilt or innocence in these proceedings. Instead, the immediate issue before it was whether Upadhyay could seek a CBI or SIT investigation directly from the High Court when other legal remedies were available.

What Upadhyay Wanted Investigated

Upadhyay had sought an FIR and an independent investigation into the alleged presence and subsequent removal of a large quantity of currency from Justice Varma’s official residence following a fire in March 2025.

His petition sought an investigation into the source, ownership, custody and disappearance of the currency, as well as the alleged failure to seize and preserve evidence. He argued that the matter went beyond the mere non-registration of an FIR and raised the question of whether ordinary criminal law could become inoperative because the person concerned occupied a high constitutional office.

‘Not Seeking Declaration Of Guilt’

“The petition neither scandalises the judiciary nor seeks any prejudgment of guilt. Judicial independence and accountability are constitutional allies; while independence protects judicial functions, it cannot confer immunity from investigation of acts which, if committed by any other public servant, would attract the ordinary criminal law,” the petition said.

Upadhyay maintained that he was not seeking a declaration of guilt against Justice Varma. Instead, he sought what he described as something “anterior and constitutionally indispensable”, an independent investigation to establish the truth.

Fire At Official Residence

According to the petition, a fire broke out during the intervening night of March 14 and 15, 2025, in a storeroom or outhouse at Justice Varma’s official residence at 30, Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi. Burnt and partially burnt currency was allegedly seen and recorded in photographs and videos during the firefighting and police response.

Justice Varma was then a judge of the Delhi High Court. After the alleged discovery triggered a major controversy, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-judge in-house inquiry committee comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, then Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court.

Inquiry Followed Cash Discovery

Justice Varma was subsequently repatriated to the Allahabad High Court and judicial work was withdrawn from him pending the inquiry. The in-house committee submitted its report in May 2025, recording a prima facie finding regarding Justice Varma’s culpability.

After Justice Varma did not accept the then Chief Justice of India’s advice to resign, the report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister for further action. The Supreme Court also made public reports and documents related to the fire, including photographs and videos showing burning currency.

Legal Challenges Followed

Justice Varma challenged the in-house inquiry and the recommendation for his removal before the Supreme Court, but his petition was dismissed. He later challenged the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute an inquiry committee, and that petition was also dismissed.

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had constituted a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to inquire into the allegations. According to Upadhyay’s petition, the statutory committee’s report, laid before Parliament on August 12, 2026, found all three charges against Justice Varma proved.

Earlier Supreme Court Plea Dismissed

Upadhyay had earlier approached the Supreme Court after an FIR was not registered on his June 2, 2026, complaint. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition under Article 32 on August 7, 2026. According to the present plea, the allegations were not adjudicated on their merits.

Also Watch:

Upadhyay submitted another complaint on August 17, 2026, after the statutory committee’s report. He argued that the circumstances warranted exceptional constitutional scrutiny because they involved a former constitutional court judge and alleged lapses by public officials.

Varma Resigned Amid Proceedings

Justice Varma subsequently faced inquiry proceedings in the Lok Sabha over the allegations and submitted his resignation to the President of India while the inquiry connected with the motion seeking his removal was underway.

Upadhyay argued that Justice Varma’s retirement in April 2026 meant that he no longer had protection against arrest under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The High Court, however, did not enter into those wider allegations on Monday and declined to entertain Upadhyay’s petition, leaving him to pursue the remedies available to him under law.