"Wild witch hunt": Delhi High Court rejects plea for CBI probe into Justice Yashwant Varma episode

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) and a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the Justice Yashwant Varma case.

Justice Amit Bansal questioned the locus of the petitioner, Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay, and said that he had an alternate remedy to approach the Delhi Police and then the competent magistrate.

"I am not entertaining this sir. This is a wild witch hunt. You have nothing better to do?" the Court remarked.  

Upadhyaya had appeared in person before the Court and argued that the matter is of "extraordinary nature" and that a magistrate will not be competent to do justice with it.

"He [magistrate] cannot direct the CBI or SIT inquiry. Magistrate or special court will not be competent to deal with the matter," Upadhyay said.

Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Premtosh Kumar Mishra appeared for the Union of India and the CBI and said that Upadhyay had earlier approached the Supreme Court and the top court rejected his plea.

Mishra added that Upadhyay had no locus and that he had the alternate remedy to approach the Delhi Police with his complaint and subsequently the competent magistrate.

After considering the case, the Court refused to entertain the petition and said that the petitioner can invoke appropriate remedy.

Upadhyay had approached the High Court seeking registration of an FIR and an independent investigation into the alleged presence and subsequent removal of a large quantity of currency from the official residence of Justice Varma following a fire in March 2025.

He sought a probe by the CBI or an independent SIT into the source, ownership, custody and disappearance of the currency, besides the alleged non-seizure and non-preservation of evidence.

According to the petition, a fire broke out during the intervening night of March 14-15, 2025 in a storeroom/outhouse at Justice Varma’s official residence at 30, Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi. It claims that burnt and partially burnt currency was seen and recorded through photographs and videos during the firefighting and police response.

The plea states that an In-House Committee and subsequently a statutory committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 examined the matter and that the latter’s report, laid before Parliament on August 12, 2026, found all three charges against Justice Varma proved.

Notably, Upadhyay had earlier approached the Supreme Court after an FIR was not registered following his June 2, 2026 complaint. The Supreme Court dismissed the Article 32 petition on August 7 without, according to the plea, adjudicating the allegations on merits.

A fresh complaint was submitted by the petitioner on August 17 following the statutory committee’s report.

The plea argues that the matter warrants exceptional constitutional scrutiny given the involvement of a former constitutional-court judge and alleged lapses by public officials.