THE Supreme Court collegium on Monday confirmed its decision to transfer Delhi High Court’s Justice Yashwant Varma, facing an enquiry over the alleged discovery of huge cash from his official residence and from whom judicial work was withdrawn, to his parent Allahabad High Court. The transfer recommendation to the Centre was made public in a resolution uploaded on the top court website. “The Supreme Court Collegium in its meetings held on March 20 and 24, 2025 has recommended the repatriation of Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge, High Court of Delhi, to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,” said the resolution.

 

On March 21, the Supreme Court said Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya had initiated an in-house inquiry against Justice Varma and there was a separate proposal to transfer him. “There is misinformation and rumours are being spread with regard to the incident at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma,” the SC statement added. Upon receiving the information, the apex court said Chief Justice Upadhyaya “commenced the in-house enquiry procedure, collecting evidence and information”. Justice Upadhyaya was stated to have commenced the enquiry prior to a meeting of the apex court collegium on March 20. Justice Varma’s proposed transfer could come into effect after the Centre accepts the recommendation.

 

The alleged cash discovery happened following a fire at Varma’s Lutyens Delhi residence at around 11.35 pm on March 14, prompting the fire officials to rush to the spot and douse it. The apex court collegium headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and the Delhi High Court subsequently issued a series of directives, including the withdrawal of judicial work from Justice Varma on Monday. The CJI constituted an in-house committee to conduct an inquiry and asked Delhi HC Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma. In an unprecedented move, the apex court late on March 22 uploaded on its website an in-house inquiry report, including photos and videos, into alleged discovery of a huge stash of cash at the residence of Justice Varma. The report contains photos and videos of the cash allegedly discovered at a storeroom at Justice Varma’s house during a firefighting operation on the night of Holi, March 14 aside from his response. Justice Varma has “unequivocally” denied the any cash being placed in the storeroom either by him or any of his family members while “strongly denouncing the suggestion that the alleged cash belonged” to them.

 

He said the allegations of cash discovery from his official residence clearly appeared to be a conspiracy to frame and malign him. “The very idea or suggestion that this cash was kept or stored by us is totally preposterous,” he said. The inquiry report submitted by Chief Justice Upadhyaya also contained material with regard to official communication which says “four to five semi-burnt stacks of Indian currency” were found. “On examining the incident reported, the material available and the response of Justice Yashwant Varma, what I find is that the Commissioner of Police in his report dated March 16, 2025 has reported that as per the guard posted at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, the debris and other partially burnt articles were removed from the room where the fire had broken out in the morning of March 15, 2025,” said the report dated March 21 and made public the next day. The report went on, “The enquiry conducted by me, prima facie, does not reveal possibility of entry or access to the room by any person other than those residing in the bungalow, the servants, the gardeners and CPWD personnel, if any.” “I am of the prima facie opinion that the entire matter warrants a deeper probe,” Justice Upadhyaya added. Following the recommendation, the SC-constituted a three-member inquiry committee comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court’s Justice Anu Sivaraman. The Supreme Court had said the proposal for transferring Justice Varma was examined by the apex court collegium comprising the CJI and the four senior most judges on March 20 and thereafter, letters were shot off to the consultee judges of the top court and the Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned, besides Justice Varma. Justice Varma was enrolled as an advocate on August 8, 1992. He was appointed as an additional judge of the Allahabad High Court on October 13, 2014. He took oath as a permanent judge of the Allahabad High Court on February 1, 2016, before being appointed as a judge of the Delhi High Court on October 11, 2021. 

 

 

A PLEA in the Supreme Court has sought a direction to Delhi Police to lodge an FIR over the alleged discovery of semi-burnt stash of cash from the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma. The plea also challenges the 1991 judgement in the K Veeraswami case in which the top court ruled that no criminal proceedings could be initiated against a judge of the High Court or the top court without the prior nod of the Chief Justice of India. The alleged cash discovery happened following a fire at Varma’s Lutyens Delhi residence at around 11.35 pm on March 14, prompting the fire officials to rush to the spot and douse it. Consequently, the apex court collegium headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and the Delhi High Court issued a series of directives, including the withdrawal of judicial work from Justice Varma on Monday.

 

The CJI constituted an in-house committee to conduct an inquiry and asked Delhi HC Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma. On Monday, Justice Varma was de-rostered till further orders. The plea, filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and three others on March 23, also said the immunity to judges violated the constitutional principle of equality before the law and raised concerns about judicial accountability and the rule of law. “To declare that the incident of recovery of huge sums …, 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…,” the plea said. The plea challenged the 1991 observation that “no criminal case shall be registered against a judge of a High court or Supreme Court without the prior permission of the CJI” and argued they were “per incuriam” (lack of care) and “sub silentio” (in silence)”.

 

“The said observation of the court is one rendered per incuriam, in ignorance of law and sub silentio, without noticing that the police is under a statutory duty to register an FIR when it receives information of a cognisable offence, and the said direction of the court is nothing short of restraining the police from discharging their statutory duty,” the plea said. The direction, the plea said, created a special class of privileged men and women, immune from the penal laws of the land. “Per incuriam” refers to a court decision made in ignorance or forgetfulness of a relevant statutory provision whereas “sub silentio” refers to a situation where a court makes a decision without explicitly stating or considering a particular point of law. The plea said, “Equality before law and equal protection of law is the core of our constitution. All are equal before law and the criminal laws apply equally to all, irrespective of one’s status, position, etc. The only exception, nay immunity, in our constitutional scheme is extended to the President and the Governors....” In Justice Varma’s case no FIR has been filed, it claimed.

 

“To declare that the 3-member committee constituted by the collegium has no jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into the incident that occurred on March 14, 2025, at the official resident of Justice Yashwant Varma where heaps of currency notes were by chance recovered in a fire constituting various cognisable under the BNS, and that the resolution of the collegium investing the committee the power to conduct such an investigation is one rendered void ab initio inasmuch as the collegium cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself to order so where Parliament or the Constitution has conferred none,” it said. It sought a direction to Delhi Police to register an FIR and prohibit others from interfering with the sovereign policing function of the State. The plea also sought a direction to the Centre to take effective and meaningful action for curbing corruption across all levels of judiciary, including the enactment of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 which lapsed.