Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of India on Friday, March 28, refused to entertain a petition seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge of the Delhi High Court, from whose residence recently, a large amount of unaccounted cash was recovered.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated that an internal inquiry mechanism is already in place and that all legal options would be open upon submission of the inquiry report.

The court ordered: "As far as the grievance regarding the third respondent is concerned, as can be seen from the Supreme Court website, in-house inquiry proceedings are underway. The inquiry procedure has been adopted and is in progress. After the report is submitted by the committee, several options will be open for the Hon’ble CJI. Therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to entertain this petition. There are broader prayers for reading down decisions of this Court. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into that aspect. Subject to the observations above, the petition is disposed of."

During the hearing, Justice Abhay S. Oka informed the petitioner, Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, that the court could not interfere in the matter at this stage, as the internal inquiry was already underway.

However, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, raised concerns on behalf of the common man, and said,"The common man keeps asking the same question. Why NO FIR was registered on 14th March on day of occurrence. Why the money was not seized, why criminal law was not put into motion."

To this, Justice Oka remarked,"You represent the common man, now there is a law laid down by two or three judgments of this court laying down the mechanism. Somebody has to educate the common man also so that they will understand why this system has been created."

Notably, the instant petition challenges the 1991 Supreme Court judgement in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which mandates prior approval from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before registering an FIR against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or High Court. The petition argues that the recent incident of recovery of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma’s residence, constitutes a cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and that the police are duty-bound to register an FIR.

"To declare that the incident of recovery of huge sums of unaccounted money, reportedly Rs. 15 crores, from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, by the fire force/police when their services for sought to douse fire, constitute a cognisable offence punishable under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that the police is duty bound to register an FIR and that the observations in paragraph 60 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. UOI prohibiting that no criminal case shall be registered against a judge of a High court or Supreme Court without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India is one rendered per incuriam and sub silentio," the plea before top court submits.

The petition contends that this requirement of obtaining CJI’s approval before filing an FIR against a judge violates the constitutional principle of "equality before law".

"Equality before law and equal protection of law is the very foundation on which the concept of rule of law is built, the very foundation of our democratic republic. Under the Constitution, only the President and the Governors alone are immune from criminal proceedings, founded on the principle that the sovereign is immune from criminal proceedings. No other authority, be it the Prime Minister, the Speaker, Chief Ministers, Chief Justices, Judges, none else enjoy immunity from criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court in directing as afore quoted, has acted contrary to the Constitution and the law of the land," the plea states.

While questioning as to why standard legal procedures were not followed in this case, the petition asserts that permitting an internal inquiry instead of a formal criminal investigation could weaken public trust in the judiciary. "The collegium in appointing a committee of judges to conduct an in-house inquiry, instead of directing that an FIR shall be lodged, has done a great disservice to public interest, the fair name and the reputation of the Supreme Court and the institution of  judiciary and even Justice Varma if one were to believe his version, which is ex facie absurd," the plea adds.

On March 24, the Supreme Court Collegium officially recommended the repatriation of Delhi High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, to the Allahabad High Court.

The official statement issued by the Collegium stated, "The Supreme Court Collegium in its meetings held on 20th and 24th March 2025 has recommended repatriation of Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge, High Court of Delhi, to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad."

On March 22, the Supreme Court released a video and reports related to the cash controversy. The court also disclosed the findings of an internal investigation along with Justice Yashwant Varma’s detailed response. However, Justice Yashwant Varma in his response dismissed all the allegations, stating that neither he nor his family members had any involvement with the cash allegedly recovered from his residence.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member committee to investigate allegations against Delhi High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma.

Recently, the top court issued a press statement addressing misinformation regarding Delhi High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of unaccounted cash was recovered.

According to the press release, upon receiving the information, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court initiated the in-house inquiry procedure and began gathering evidence. It further stated that Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya would submit his report to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for further action.

In a related development, the High Court Bar Association (HCBA), Allahabad, has strongly objected to the Supreme Court’s decision to transfer Justice Yashwant Varma back to the Allahabad High Court following allegations of corruption. Expressing outrage, the Bar Association released a statement questioning whether the Allahabad High Court was being treated as a “trash bin” for tainted judges.