Cash row: SC junks plea for FIR against Justice Varma, terms it 'premature'
An in-house inquiry was in progress and there would be several options open to the CJI after the probe's conclusion, observed the apex court
Calling it “premature”, the Supreme Court on Friday rejected a PIL seeking Delhi police to register an FIR over the alleged discovery of burnt wads of cash from the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said an in-house inquiry was in progress and there would be several options open to the chief justice of India after the probe's conclusion.
The bench, therefore, refused to examine the plea of advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and three others. “We have seen the prayers. After the in-house inquiry is over, several options are open. If the report indicates something is wrong, the chief justice (of India) can direct the register of the FIR or refer the matter to the Parliament after examining the report,” the court said.
Also read: 'Mystery fire case': CBI filed FIR against Yashwant Varma way back in 2018
‘Not the day to consider this plea’
The bench went on, “Today it is not the day to consider this petition. After the in-house report, all options are open. Why should we go into this question? The petition is premature because internal inquiry is going on.”
Nedumpara, however, argued it investigation was not the court's job and should carried out by the police. “The in-house committee is not a statutory authority and cannot be a substitute for criminal investigations undertaken by specialised agencies,” he said.
The lawyer said the common man had a lot of questions such as, “Why no FIR was registered on the day when the cash was discovered on March 14? Why no seizure was prepared? Why the scandal was kept a secret for one week? Why the criminal law was not set into motion? Why did the collegium not tell the public?”
The top court asked Nedumpara to let the process get over following which there were options available. The bench told him if he was representing the common man, then he should educate them about there being a system.
Also read: Cash discovery: Allahabad HC lawyers on indefinite strike over transfer of Justice Varma
Transferred to Allahabad High Court
Meanwhile, amid cash discovery row, the government on Friday notified the transfer of Justice Varma to his parent Allahabad High Court. The Law Ministry issued a notification announcing the transfer of the judge.
Recommending his transfer on Monday, the Supreme Court Collegium had asserted the move was separate from an in-house probe ordered by the top court over the alleged discovery of cash from Justice Varma's home after a fire incident on the night of Holi, March 14.
According to a SC resolution on Monday, “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.” 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.
Justice Upadhyaya was stated to have commenced the inquiry prior to a meeting of the apex court collegium on March 20.
Orders for withdrawal of judicial work
The alleged cash discovery happened following a fire at Varma's Lutyens' Delhi residence around 11.35 pm on March 14.
Also read: Cash discovery row: Judicial work withdrawn from Justice Yashwant Varma, says Delhi HC
Subsequently, 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.
Justice Varma has “unequivocally” denied any cash being placed in a storeroom on his residential premises 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.
(With agency inputs)