Full Breakdown
Delhi High Court Dismisses FIR Petition Over Cash Discovery at Former Judge Yashwant Varma’s Residence
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Court Refuses to Register FIR and Order Investigation
On September 21 2026, a bench of the Delhi High Court led by Justice Amit Bansal declined to entertain a petition filed by advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay that sought registration of a first-information report (FIR) and a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged recovery of cash at the official residence of former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma. The court described the filing as a “wild witch hunt” and noted that the petitioner had alternative legal remedies, including approaching the Delhi Police and a competent magistrate.
Background & Context
The controversy began after a fire broke out at Varma’s residence in Lutyens’ Delhi on the night of March 14 2025. Fire-department personnel reported partially burnt bundles of currency notes in an outhouse. The incident triggered a parliamentary inquiry, a judicial in-house committee and media scrutiny. Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court on April 5 2025, faced impeachment proceedings and resigned, submitting his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu. The Lok Sabha inquiry committee, constituted on August 12 2025, found the charges against Varma “proved.”
Timeline
- March 14 2025 – Fire at Varma’s residence; partially burnt cash reportedly discovered.
- April 5 2025 – Transfer to Allahabad High Court.
- April 9 2025 (or April 19 2025) – Varma resigns; resignation letter to President Murmu.
- August 12 2025 – Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla forms three-member inquiry committee.
- May 18 2026 – Inquiry Committee report presented to Lok Sabha.
- August 7 2026 – Supreme Court dismisses a similar petition, calling it “cheap publicity.”
- September 21 2026 – Delhi High Court rejects the FIR petition, labeling it a “wild witch hunt.”
- September 23 2026 – A fresh plea for FIR registration is mentioned before a Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant.
Official Statements & Responses
Justice Amit Bansal questioned why the petitioner had not first approached the trial court or the Delhi Police, emphasizing that “alternative remedies” were available under existing law. Standing counsel Premtosh Kumar Mishra, representing the Union of India and the CBI, reiterated that Upadhyay had already approached the Supreme Court, which dismissed the plea, and that the petitioner lacked locus to file directly in the High Court.
The Lok Sabha inquiry committee, constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968, concluded that all three Articles of Charge against Varma were proved, citing unexplained cash, mishandling of evidence and unsatisfactory explanations. The findings were tabled in Parliament on May 18 2026.
Verbatim Quotes
- “He [the magistrate] cannot direct the CBI or SIT enquiry. A magistrate or special court will not be competent to deal with the matter,” — Ghanshyam Upadhyay, advocate
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on the exact date of Varma’s resignation: most outlets (Hindustan Times, India Today, Mathrubhumi, New Indian Express, The Hindu, The Print) state April 9 2025, while Lawbeat records April 19 2025. No source provides the precise amount of cash allegedly recovered, and the fire-department report on the quantity of notes remains undisclosed.
What’s Next
A fresh petition seeking FIR registration was raised before the Supreme Court on September 23 2026, with advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara urging the bench to list the matter. The CJI’s response was limited to an acknowledgment without a substantive ruling. The Supreme Court’s next procedural step—whether to list and hear the petition—remains pending.