The Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain a plea that sought a court order to register an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court, following the discovery of half-burnt currency at his official residence after a fire incident in March 2025.
Petitioner Asked to Approach Appropriate Authorities
A bench led by Justice A.S. Oka told the petitioner, advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, that the correct course of action would be to submit a representation before appropriate authorities, not file a writ petition.
“The petitioner will have to seek redressal of their grievance by filing representation before the appropriate authorities rather than seek a writ of mandamus,” the court said in its order.
The bench therefore declined to entertain the petition, noting it wasn’t necessary to go into the other prayers made in the plea.
Background: Cash Found After Fire at Judge’s Residence
The controversy began in March when a fire broke out at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, and partially burnt currency notes were allegedly recovered. The incident triggered serious allegations, including charges of corruption and bribery.
The petitioner claimed that despite the seriousness of the situation, no FIR was filed, and criminal proceedings were not initiated, which would have normally included crime scene protection, evidence seizure, and arrests.
“The huge volumes of money that was burned and partly removed was nothing but bribe/corruption — punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act,” the petition alleged.
SC In-House Probe Already Forwarded
The Supreme Court had earlier released a press statement on May 8, stating that the in-house inquiry report, along with Justice Varma’s response, had already been forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister for further action.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) had forwarded the report after Justice Varma declined to resign or retire voluntarily.
What Does the Law Say?
The petitioner cited the 1991 K. Veeraswami judgment, which held that any criminal case against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge can only proceed with prior approval from the Chief Justice of India.
This legal requirement acts as a safeguard to maintain judicial independence, but also adds complexity when allegations arise against constitutional court judges. While the Supreme Court has declined to directly intervene, the matter remains under the purview of the highest constitutional authorities. The case highlights ongoing debates around judicial accountability, transparency, and the balance between independence and oversight in India’s justice system.
