Full Breakdown
Delhi High Court Declines Petition Over Alleged Cash Discovery at Former Judge’s Residence
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Court Rejects FIR and Probe Petition
On September 21, 2026, a bench of Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court refused to entertain a petition filed by advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay seeking registration of an FIR and a probe by a Special Investigation Team or the CBI into the alleged cash found at the residence of former judge Yashwant Varma. After the dismissal, Upadhyay withdrew the petition.
Background & Context
A fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Lutyens’ Delhi on March 14, 2025, the night of Holi, at about 11:35 p.m. Fire-department personnel reported seeing “wads of cash” in an outhouse. The incident led to Varma’s transfer to the Allahabad High Court and impeachment proceedings in the Lok Sabha.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-member in-house inquiry committee. The May-2025 report found Varma’s explanation unsatisfactory and advised the President and Prime Minister to start the constitutional removal process. Varma declined to resign, prompting the CJI to forward the recommendation.
Varma resigned on April 9, 2026, submitting a letter to President Droupadi Murmu, ending the Lok Sabha-initiated removal process. He had been due to retire on January 5, 2031.
Legal Proceedings and Remedies
Advocate Upadhyay argued that the incident was “extraordinary” and that ordinary courts could not deliver justice, insisting that criminal proceedings could be initiated by anyone.
Standing counsel Premtosh Kumar Mishra, representing the Union, the CBI and Delhi Police, said Upadhyay lacked locus and that the proper route was to approach the Delhi Police and then a magistrate. Mishra noted that Upadhyay had previously sought relief from the Supreme Court, which dismissed the plea in August 2025.
Official Statements & Responses
- Justice Yashwant Varma: denied that he or his family placed money at the site.
- CJI Sanjiv Khanna: forwarded the inquiry report to the President and Prime Minister, recommending removal.
Data & Statistics
The cash is described only qualitatively—as a “large quantity,” “huge stash,” or “wads of cash.” No monetary figure has been disclosed.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ in wording but none provide a quantified amount or independent verification of the cash’s existence, leaving the factual extent unclear.
What’s Next
With the petition withdrawn and the High Court indicating alternative legal avenues remain, no further court-ordered investigation is scheduled. The matter now depends on law-enforcement discretion and any future applications by the petitioner in appropriate forums.