Delhi HC refuses plea seeking FIR, CBI probe against Justice Yashwant Varma; says petitioner has no locus

Justice Amit Bansal questioned the locus of the petitioner, advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay, and observed that he had an alternative remedy of approaching the Delhi Police and thereafter the competent magistrate.

During the hearing, the court remarked: I am not entertaining this, sir. This is a wild witch hunt. You have nothing better to do?

The court subsequently permitted Upadhyay to withdraw the petition and avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Upadhyay, appearing in person, had sought registration of an FIR and an independent investigation by the CBI or SIT into the alleged presence, custody and disappearance of currency from Justice Varmas official residence following a fire in March 2025.

The petitioner argued that failure to set the criminal law in motion despite material allegedly disclosing cognizable offences was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

He submitted that the material available in the matter was far above the threshold of bare suspicion required for registration of an FIR and commencement of an investigation.

The petition also contended that the findings of the In-House Committee and the statutory Inquiry Committee, though they could not by themselves be treated as proof of criminal guilt, constituted relevant material for determining whether there was reasonable suspicion of cognizable offences warranting activation of the criminal investigative machinery.

The petitioner further sought a probe into the alleged source, ownership, custody and disappearance of the currency, besides what he described as non-seizure and non-preservation of material evidence following the fire.

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

During the hearing, Central Government Standing Counsel Premtosh Kumar Mishra, appearing for the Union of India and the CBI, opposed the plea and submitted that the petitioner had no locus to maintain the proceedings. He also pointed out that Upadhyay had earlier approached the Supreme Court and his plea had been rejected.

Mishra submitted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the Delhi Police with his complaint and, thereafter, the competent magistrate.

Upadhyay, however, argued that the matter was of an extraordinary nature and claimed that a magistrate would not be competent to adequately deal with the matter, contending that a magistrate could not direct a CBI or SIT inquiry.

After considering the submissions, the High Court declined to entertain the petition and allowed the petitioner to withdraw it with liberty to avail an appropriate remedy under law.

The development comes against the backdrop of the statutory inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the discovery of burnt currency at Justice Varmas official residence. The three-member inquiry committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 has recorded findings on the charges concerning the presence of unexplained currency, preservation of material evidence and explanations furnished by Justice Varma. (ANI)