Cash Burn Controversy-Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma-Mar 2025

Cash Burn Controversy at Delhi High Court Judge's Residence
Date	Mar 14, 2025 – Mar 15, 2025
Location	Delhi, India
Goals	Improved Judicial Accountability and Transparency
Status	Event Aftermath Ongoing
Lead figures
Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma

On Mar 14, 2025, a fire broke out at Delhi High Court Justice, Yashwant Varma's residence. As per Delhi High Court Chief Justice, (Delhi HC-CJ), Devendra Upadhyaya’s, 25-page report, ‘four to five semi-burnt sacks of Indian currency notes’ were found in Justice Varma’s Lutyens' Delhi residence. Video evidence depicted officers sifting through heaps of charred cash at Justice Varma’s home, sparking speculation about the money's origins and purpose.

A video of the incident released by the Supreme Court shows large volumes of burnt currency.

Timeline of the Cash Burn Controversy

Mar 14, 2025

A fire broke out at Justice, Varma's, residence. Firefighters were called to douse it. The ‘huge stash of cash’ was discovered around 11.35 pm.

Mar 21, 2025

Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, issued directions to Justice Varma to retain the data on his phone and not delete any messages or call records of the last six months. He asked Justice Verma to explain: a) the presence of cash in the premises? b) the source of the cash? c) who removed the burnt cash from the room on the morning of March 15, 2025?

Mar 22, 2025

The report submitted to the CJI by the Delhi HC-CJ, the CJI's response, the statement of Justice Varma and the photos and videos from the time of the fire incident have all been published online by the Supreme Court of India.

As per the official statement of Justice Varma released by the Supreme Court, he denied that money was found in the storeroom; he also said that the room that caught fire was not attached to his living area and was accessible to a lot of people including the guards, gardeners, staff and CPWD personnel.

Following the submission of Delhi HC-CJ Upadhyaya's report, CJI Khanna constituted a 3-member inquiry committee, comprising of, Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court G.S. Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Judge Anu Sivaraman to investigate the matter.

Mar 23, 2025

A sanitation worker finds burnt ₹ 500 notes outside Justice Varma's house.

The report, initially submitted by fire department officials, omits the mention of the large sum of money found at the scene limiting the list articles burnt to ‘stationery and domestic articles’. Delhi Fire Services, Director Atul Garg initially stated that no cash was found during the firefighting operations. However, later he denied that statement and said that he never told the media that firefighters had reported no cash at the scene.

Mar 24, 2025

The Delhi High Court stripped Justice Varma of judicial responsibilities.

Mar 28, 2025

Justice Varma was transferred to his parent, Allahabad High, Court.

The Supreme Court also dismissed a plea seeking an FIR into the recovery of huge pile of allegedly, Rs 15 crore, cash from Justice Varma's residence.

Apr 5, 2025

Justice Varma was sworn in, in what the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA) described as a ‘clandestine’ manner. The lawyers' body, which had opposed his transfer, condemned the move and questioned why the oath was not officially notified to the Bar.

Apr 17, 2025

Vice President (VP) Jagdeep Dhankhar demanded answers from the Supreme Court speaking at an event at the Rajya Sabha secretariat. He raised serious concerns regarding judicial accountability and the lack of legal action.

In his address, the Vice President questioned the delay in public awareness about the incident, asking why was there no information about the fire and the discovery of burnt cash for the first seven days? Why did the first newspaper report appear only on March 21?

He referred to a subsequent Supreme Court report that acknowledged culpability, stating that the judiciary as an institution now finds itself under scrutiny. It had been over a month and it was time for transparency, he asserted.

He highlighted that, to date, no First Information Report (FIR) has been filed—a prerequisite for any criminal investigation. He emphasized that while an FIR can be registered against any constitutional functionary, in the case of a judge, it can only be done with prior approval from both the Chief Justice of India and the President. “The Constitution does not grant judges immunity from prosecution,” he said, questioning, “So how has such immunity been assumed?”

The law of the land mandates that every cognisable offence must be reported to the police. Failure to do so is itself a criminal offence. This raises a fundamental question—why has no FIR been filed?”

He also expressed skepticism regarding the formation of a three-member committee by the Supreme Court to examine the matter, questioning the legal basis for such a mechanism. “Is this committee an investigative body, or does that role lie with the executive?” he asked, reiterating that the authority to conduct investigations rests with the executive branch. “Only Parliament is empowered to take action in such cases,” he added, while expressing disappointment over the lack of progress after more than a month

He concluded by citing the findings of a recent media survey, which indicated a decline in public confidence in the judiciary, urging introspection and immediate corrective action.

Apr 18, 2025

Justice Yashwant Verma has refused to vacate his Delhi bungalow after being transferred to the Allahabad High Court, with CRPF security still in place. His remark, 'I’ll keep coming back,' has triggered debate over judicial propriety and official housing norms.

May 1 and Beyond

May 7, Justice Varma was indicted by the in-house judicial committee over allegations linked to the discovery of unaccounted cash at his residence. Their report stated that several stacks of burnt notes, as high as 1.5 feet, were found scattered across the storeroom of Justice Varma's Delhi residence. The committee recommended that he be asked to resign. If he did not comply, their report was to be submitted to the President of India with a recommendation for his impeachment.

If pursued, this motion will initiate a rare and intricate removal process under the Constitution of India and the Judges Inquiry Act. According to Article 217, read with Article 124(4), a High Court Judge can be removed only by the President after both Houses of Parliament pass a motion with a special majority on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.

The Judges Inquiry Act mandates that the process begin with a notice of motion signed by 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha. If the Speaker or Chairman admits the motion, a three-member committee — comprising an SC Judge, HC Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist — is formed to probe the charges.

The judge has the right to a fair hearing, including responding to charges and cross-examining witnesses. If the committee finds the judge guilty, the matter is returned to Parliament for a final vote.

In the history of India’s judiciary, no HC judge has been removed through impeachment. If Justice Varma is impeached, it will be unprecedented. There have, however, been only two instances of Parliament taking up the impeachment motion — in one case, it could not get the required support to be passed and in the other, the judge resigned.

Jun 4, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju told the media that the government was working to build a consensus among political parties to initiate the impeachment process.

Edit Article

To edit this article or add a new page to IndiaWiki.org kindly send an email with the proposed updates to IndiaWiki