Bombay Lawyers Urge CJI To Sanction Justice Varma’s Prosecution Over ₹15 Cr Cash Haul

In a formal representation addressed to the CJI, the lawyers’ body invoked the landmark Constitution Bench judgment in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), which requires prior approval from the Chief Justice of India before initiating criminal proceedings against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge.

The Association submitted that the March 14, 2025 fire at Justice Varma’s then official residence at 30 Tughlak Road, New Delhi, led to the discovery of a large stash of partially burnt, unaccounted cash. Subsequent internal inquiry reports and media accounts estimate the recovered amount at around Rs. 15 crore.

Citing a preliminary inquiry by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice and the subsequent constitution of an in-house committee by the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the Association stated that credible prima facie evidence had emerged justifying the registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The three-member in-house committee, headed by Chief Justices Sheel Nagu, G.S. Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, reportedly examined the origin of the cash, Justice Varma’s explanation, and how it was removed from the premises the day after the fire. The committee’s report, submitted in May 2025, was forwarded to the President and Prime Minister along with a recommendation for impeachment after Justice Varma allegedly declined to resign or retire voluntarily.

While the Supreme Court on May 21, 2025, declined to entertain a PIL seeking immediate criminal action, it left the door open for representations before competent authorities, prompting the present move.

The Association has urged the CJI to:

1. Grant sanction for filing an FIR under corruption and criminal misconduct provisions,

2. Direct authorities such as the Delhi Police or CBI to preserve all related evidence, including currency notes, video, and photographs;

3. Disclose the in-house inquiry report to enable proper complaints and further legal action.

The letter argues that delay in criminal proceedings threatens the integrity of evidence and public confidence in the judiciary. It also points out that the precedent for such action exists, most notably, the CBI's case against Justice S.N. Shukla of the Allahabad High Court in 2019, which was permitted by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi.

In a related news, the Supreme Court on May 28, refused to provide information in an RTI application seeking copy of the in-house inquiry report against Justice Yashwant Varma. The RTI also sought copy of the letter sent by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the Prime Minister and President of India.

Justice Yashwant Varma had refused to put in resignation following his indictment by the panel set up under the supervision of the Top Court.

On May 8, Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna forwarded the report submitted by 3-member committee to the President of India.

The panel submitted its report to the outgoing CJI on May 4, indicting Justice Varma.