Cheap publicity: Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking SIT probe into Justice Yashwant Varma episode

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition by a lawyer seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) and a court-monitored probe by a special investigation team (SIT) into the infamous "burnt currency" incident involving former Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said that the petition was filed for cheap publicity and declined to entertain it.

The petitioner, Ghanshyam Upadhayay, said that though Justice Varma had resigned from office, that does not erase criminal liability for the unaccounted money recovered from his residence.

"Earlier similar petition was dismissed on technical ground that no complaint was filed before filing the petition. That is done now. A judge of the high court has been held to be a public servant. Now he is retired also. There is no immunity from prosecution," the petitioner submitted.

However, the Bench declined to entertain the matter.

"All cheap publicity. We are not inclined to entertain this. Dismissed," the top court said.

A fire at Justice Varma's house on the evening of March 14 had allegedly led to the recovery of unaccounted cash. At the time, Justice Varma and his wife were traveling in Madhya Pradesh. Only his daughter and aged mother were at home when the fire broke out. A video later surfaced showing bundles of cash burning in the fire.

The incident led to allegations of corruption against Justice Varma, who denied the accusations and said that it appeared to be a conspiracy to frame him.

The Chief Justice of India then initiated an in-house probe into the allegations and set up a three-member committee on March 22 to conduct the inquiry.

The in-house committee that probed Justice Varma comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman. The panel started the probe on March 25 and submitted its report to CJI Khanna on May 4. 

The CJI, on receiving the report of the in-house committee, asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. However, since Justice Varma declined to quit, CJI Khanna forwarded the report and the judge's response on it to the President of India and the Prime Minister for removal of the judge. Following the allegations, Justice Varma was sent back to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court. His judicial work was taken away pending further action.

In August 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla initiated the process to remove Justice Varma from his position by constituting a three-member panel to probe the allegations against him.

The Committee initially comprised Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Senior Advocate BV Acharya. Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar replaced Justice Shrivastava, who retired on March 6.

In January this year, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the inquiry proceedings initiated against Justice Varma, ruling that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha was legally entitled to constitute the Judges Inquiry Committee.

Justice Varma tendered his resignation from office in April this year before the process of removal could be completed.