Back
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Former HC Judge Yashwant Varma as 'Cheap Publicity'
The on dismissed a writ petition seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and a court-monitored probe against former judge Justice Yashwant Varma over the recovery of burnt currency notes from his official residence. A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe described the petition as a “” and refused to entertain it.
“You are an advocate. This is just a . All for cheap publicity. We are not inclined to entertain this. Dismissed,” the Bench told petitioner-advocate .
A fire, unaccounted cash and a judge’s fall
The controversy began on , when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s Lutyens’ Delhi residence, then his official home as a judge. Firefighters who responded to the blaze reportedly found semi-burnt bundles of currency notes in a storeroom attached to the house. Justice Varma and his wife were said to be out of town, while his daughter and elderly mother were present at the time.
The discovery triggered a major public controversy. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member on , comprising then Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, then Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman. After examining more than 55 witnesses, the committee submitted its report in . It found direct and electronic evidence indicating that the storeroom was under the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family, and held that the allegations amounted to proved misconduct serious enough to warrant his removal under .
Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing and alleged that he was the victim of a conspiracy. He was repatriated to the and divested of judicial work while the inquiry was pending.
Recusal and rebuff: How the plea travelled
The petition, filed as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 269 of 2026, was initially listed before Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu. Since Justice Nagu had been a member of the , the Bench said he was “disabled” from hearing the matter and directed that the case be placed before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate Bench.
The matter was later heard by the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe. Upadhyay argued that an earlier petition had been dismissed only on a technical ground because no prior complaint had been filed, and that this defect had since been cured. He submitted that a judge of the High Court is a and that, with Justice Varma having resigned in April this year, there was no .
The Supreme Court, however, declined to examine those submissions on merits. It noted that similar petitions had already been rejected and dismissed the plea .
‘All cheap publicity’: What the Court said
The Bench’s observations were unusually blunt. “All cheap publicity. We are not inclined to entertain this. Dismissed,” it said.
Earlier judicial findings had already shaped the broader legal landscape around the controversy. The Supreme Court had dismissed Justice Varma’s challenge to the in-house inquiry, holding that the procedure was “fair and just” and that the in-house inquiry was preliminary, , and not final. It also held that the did not bar internal disciplinary mechanisms, and that the Chief Justice of India was not a mere “post office” while forwarding the inquiry report to the President and the Prime Minister.
Parliamentary removal proceedings were later initiated under the , after notices signed by MPs were moved against Justice Varma in both Houses. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted a three-member inquiry committee, and Justice Varma challenged its composition. The Supreme Court refused to interfere. He ultimately resigned from office on this year while the removal proceedings were still underway, saying he was stepping down with “deep anguish.”
What the dismissal means
The Supreme Court’s order does not decide whether the allegations against Justice Varma are true or false. It is a refusal, at the admission stage, to entertain a petition that the Court regarded as an for cheap publicity.
The practical effect is that no direction has been issued for registration of an FIR or for a court-monitored SIT probe arising from the burnt cash discovery. The dismissal also reinforces the Court’s reluctance to allow repeated PIL-style petitions on issues already examined through institutional mechanisms, including an internal judicial inquiry and a parliamentary removal process.
For Justice Varma, the controversy remains unresolved in the public domain. For the Supreme Court, the message was clear: using a constitutional court for “cheap publicity” would not be tolerated.
