Videos purportedly showing bundles of currency notes burning surfaced when a fire broke out

Videos purportedly showing bundles of currency notes burning surfaced when a fire broke out

On Monday, the Delhi High Court rejected a petition that sought a first information report (FIR) and a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry regarding allegations of unaccounted cash found at the official residence of former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. The court characterized the petition as a “wild witch hunt.” This dismissal highlights the ongoing legal scrutiny surrounding high-profile figures in the judiciary.

Standing counsel Premtosh Kumar Mishra, who represented the government, CBI and Delhi Police, argued that Upadhyay had no locus and that an alternative remedy was available to him. He pointed out that he had approached the Supreme Court seeking similar relief, but the petition was dismissed without granting him liberty to approach the high court. Videos purportedly showing bundles of currency notes burning surfaced when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence while he was serving as a judge of the Delhi high court. Justice Varma and his wife were travelling in Madhya Pradesh at the time, while his daughter and elderly mother were at the residence.

Justice Varma’s Judicial Duties Suspended Amid Investigation

Justice Varma has stated that neither he nor any family member was involved in placing money at the site in question. Following this assertion, he has been repatriated to his original position at the Allahabad High Court. Consequently, all judicial responsibilities have been suspended pending further investigation.

“You have nothing better to do? A bench of Justice Amit Bansal permitted the petitioner, advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay, to withdraw his petition for registration of an FIR and constitution of a special investigation team to probe the alleged recovery in Delhi in March 2025.

The court said that Upadhyay had an alternate remedy and no locus to file the petition. I am dismissing it,” the bench told Upadhyay. Upadhyay said that neither a magistrate nor a special court is competent enough to do “justice” with the matter.