Supreme Court Disposes of Plea Seeking FIR in Delhi High Court Judge Cash Controversy

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday dismissed a petition seeking a directive to the Delhi Police for immediate FIR registration and a comprehensive probe into the recent cash controversy involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court.

The case has gained significant attention after a large sum of burnt cash was reportedly discovered at the judge’s official residence.

SC Bench Observes Ongoing ‘In-House’ Inquiry

A bench headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka, along with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that an internal inquiry is already in progress and that further action would depend on its findings.

“The ‘in-house’ inquiry is ongoing. If the report finds something wrong, an FIR could be directed, or the matter could be referred to the Parliament. Today is not the time to consider the registration of an FIR,” the bench observed while addressing advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, the petitioner in the case.

The Supreme Court noted that once the committee submits its report as per the “in-house procedure,” several options will be available to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for further action.

Petition Raises Concerns Over Delay and Transparency

The plea raised serious concerns about the delay in the registration of an FIR despite the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash on March 14, 2025. The petitioner questioned why no immediate arrests were made, why the money was not seized, and why no criminal proceedings were initiated.

The petition further highlighted that the delay in making electronic records publicly available raises concerns about a possible cover-up attempt.

“Justice Varma, in his explanation, stated that it is not his money and that he was completely unaware of it. If that were the case, why did he not immediately report the matter to the police?” the petition argued.

SC Panel and Its Authority Questioned

The petition also challenged the jurisdiction of the three-member committee constituted by the Supreme Court Collegium to investigate the matter. The petitioner contended that since the issue involves cognizable offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), it should not be solely subjected to an internal judicial panel but rather a criminal investigation.

Additionally, the plea took issue with the landmark judgment in the K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India case, which held that no criminal case should be registered against a High Court or Supreme Court judge without prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

• Also Read | Judicial Controversy: Supreme Court Inquiry Raises Doubts Over DFS Denial of Cash Discovery

The petition argued that such a ruling effectively shields judges from the penal laws of the country, creating a privileged class that could obstruct the registration of FIRs even in serious cases, including those involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Judiciary’s Response and Immediate Actions

Following the cash discovery, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member panel to conduct an internal inquiry. The panel includes:

• Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court)
• Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Chief Justice, Himachal Pradesh High Court)
• Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court)

In response to the allegations, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, D.K. Upadhyaya, withdrew judicial responsibilities from Justice Yashwant Varma until further notice.

Additionally, on the same day, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by CJI Khanna, recommended Justice Varma’s repatriation to the Allahabad High Court, from where he was initially elevated. However, the Union Government has not yet acted upon this recommendation.

Legal and Public Reactions

The case has sparked widespread debate within legal circles and the public domain. Several leaders of Bar Associations have urged the Supreme Court Collegium to withdraw Justice Varma’s transfer recommendation to the Allahabad High Court, arguing that such a move could undermine judicial accountability and transparency.

Meanwhile, legal experts have pointed out that this case highlights the urgent need for judicial reforms and greater transparency in handling allegations against sitting judges.