‘For cheap publicity’: SC junks plea for criminal probe against Justice Varma
Supreme Court Rejects Criminal Probe Plea Against Justice Varma as ‘Cheap Publicity’
Bharatmorningnews.com – The apex court has turned away a petition requesting a court-supervised criminal investigation into claims that unaccounted money was found at the official residence of former Allahabad high court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. The bench characterized the application as an effort to generate “cheap publicity.”
Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe refused to consider the petition submitted by advocate Ghanshyam Upadhayay. The petitioner had requested that authorities register a first information report and establish a special investigation team to examine the alleged cash recovery from Justice Varma’s Delhi residence during March 2025.
All cheap publicity. We are not inclined to entertain this…Dismissed,
The bench remarked.
According to the petitioner, Justice Varma’s resignation did not eliminate potential criminal liability connected to the allegations. He noted that a previous petition seeking comparable relief had been rejected on technical grounds due to the absence of a formal complaint with investigating agencies before the matter reached the court.
Now that a complaint has been filed, and since a high court judge has been held to be a public servant and Justice Varma has also demitted office, there is no immunity from prosecution,
the petitioner stated.
Timeline of Events
The dispute originated in March 2025 when a fire erupted at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi while he held a position on the Delhi high court bench. At that moment, Justice Varma and his spouse were traveling through Madhya Pradesh, whereas his daughter and elderly mother remained at the house. Videos appeared showing bundles of currency notes engulfed in flames.
Justice Varma rejected any awareness or possession of the cash, labeling the accusations as a coordinated effort to damage his reputation. He maintained that neither he nor any family member had deposited money at the location.
Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna established a three-member internal inquiry committee consisting of Punjab and Haryana high court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh high court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia, and Karnataka high court judge Justice Anu Sivaraman to investigate the claims.
The committee presented its findings in May 2025, concluding that Justice Varma’s explanation was inadequate. Following the report, CJI Khanna directed Justice Varma to either resign or confront impeachment proceedings. When Justice Varma refused to step down, the CJI transmitted the inquiry report alongside Justice Varma’s response to both the President and the Prime Minister, suggesting the constitutional removal process begin.
Justice Varma was subsequently transferred back to the Allahabad high court, and his judicial responsibilities were suspended pending further developments.
Parliamentary and Legal Developments
These events triggered removal proceedings in Parliament. During July 2025, notices bearing signatures from members of Parliament were presented in both Houses requesting Justice Varma’s removal. The Lok Sabha accepted the motion and formed a Judges Inquiry Committee, while the Rajya Sabha rejected a concurrent motion due to procedural problems.
Justice Varma tendered his resignation in April while the parliamentary investigation continued.
As reported earlier, after resigning on April 9, Justice Varma returned official amenities and privileges associated with judicial office. He stopped receiving judicial salary, though pension and other terminal benefits remain pending. He also reactivated his Bar Council enrollment and gained legal entitlement under the relevant regulatory framework to resume private legal practice whenever he chooses.
This year, the Supreme Court denied Justice Varma’s request to intervene in the inquiry proceedings launched under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, ruling that the Lok Sabha Speaker possessed the authority to form the inquiry committee.
Last month, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla told the House that the government planned to present the inquiry committee’s report on Justice Varma when Parliament resumed for the Monsoon Session on July 20. The report has not yet been placed before Parliament.
In the petition rejected on Friday, Upadhayay asserted that despite filing a comprehensive complaint on June 2 with the Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi Police, and the Enforcement Directorate, no FIR had been recorded. The application contended that evidence available in the public domain, including official Supreme Court statements, documents from the in-house inquiry, photographs, videos, and other materials, warranted criminal investigation.
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is For cheap publicity?
For cheap publicity is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does For cheap publicity matter?
For cheap publicity matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.