Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea for CBI Inquiry into Justice Varma Incident
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a petition seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) concerning the Justice Yashwant Varma incident. Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, questioned the standing of the petitioner, Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay, emphasizing that he had the option to approach the Delhi Police and subsequently a competent magistrate for his grievances.
“I am not entertaining this, sir. This is a wild witch hunt. You have nothing better to do?” remarked Justice Bansal, suggesting that the petition lacked substance. Advocate Upadhyay, representing himself, asserted that the case was of an “extraordinary nature” and beyond the jurisdiction of a magistrate, arguing that only a higher authority such as the CBI or a SIT could handle the investigation adequately.
Appearing for the Union of India and the CBI, Central Government Standing Counsel Premtosh Kumar Mishra pointed out that Upadhyay had previously approached the Supreme Court with this matter, which had been rejected. Mishra further argued that Upadhyay lacked the necessary locus standi and reiterated the alternative legal remedies available to him through the Delhi Police and the magistracy.
Despite these arguments, the High Court decided against entertaining the petition, directing the petitioner to explore other legal remedies available under the law.
Allegations of Currency Mismanagement Following Fire
Advocate Upadhyay’s petition stemmed from an incident involving the alleged mishandling of a significant amount of currency at Justice Varma’s official residence following a fire in March 2025. Upadhyay sought an independent investigation into the source, ownership, and disappearance of the currency, as well as the alleged neglect in preserving the evidence.
The petition detailed the events of March 14-15, 2025, when a fire broke out in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s residence at 30, Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi. According to the petitioner, photographs and videos captured burned and partially burned currency during the firefighting and police operations.
An In-House Committee and a statutory committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, had already examined the incident. The statutory committee’s report, presented to Parliament on August 12, 2026, concluded that all charges against Justice Varma were substantiated.
Upadhyay had initially filed a complaint on June 2, 2026, which did not result in an FIR. Subsequently, he approached the Supreme Court, which dismissed his Article 32 petition on August 7, 2026, without delving into the merits of the allegations. A renewed complaint was lodged by Upadhyay on August 17, 2026, following the statutory committee’s findings.
More Read
The petitioner argued the case required exceptional constitutional scrutiny due to the involvement of a former constitutional court judge and suggested lapses by public officials.
