Supreme Court Declines FIR in Justice Varma Cash Scandal, Says 'Action Lies with President, PM'
In a development that could significantly impact the future of judicial accountability in India, the Supreme Court today declined to entertain a plea demanding a First Information Report (FIR) into the mysterious discovery of unaccounted cash at the residence of former Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma.
What Happened?
A bench comprising Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the ruling on Wednesday, categorically stating that the matter was no longer within the purview of the Court. Instead, they directed attention to the May 8 announcement that the in-house inquiry report has already been submitted to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The controversy erupted earlier this year after a fire incident at Justice Varma’s government-allotted bungalow led to the discovery of large quantities of unaccounted cash. Sources familiar with the preliminary investigation described the wads of currency as “suspicious in nature,” leading to intense media scrutiny and public speculation over potential corruption at the highest judicial levels.
Supreme Court Speaks: Institutional Boundaries Respected
Rejecting the plea for criminal proceedings, Justice Oka remarked,
“Once the internal mechanism of the judiciary has been activated and its findings sent to the constitutional authorities, it is neither appropriate nor permissible for this Court to preempt their role.”
The bench further suggested that any further action lies squarely with the executive—specifically the President and Prime Minister—since the judiciary had fulfilled its internal obligations through the in-house inquiry protocol, a mechanism seldom publicly discussed but vital to judicial discipline in India.
Understanding the In-House Inquiry Protocol
The in-house procedure is an internal disciplinary process established by the Supreme Court in 1997. It allows for the examination of allegations against sitting or retired judges without resorting to external prosecution, ostensibly to maintain the independence and sanctity of the judiciary.
However, critics have often labeled it a “closed-door process” lacking transparency. In this case, even after weeks of public outcry and demands from civil society organizations, the contents of the report remain sealed, fueling concerns over accountability and openness.
Public Reactions & Legal Experts Divided
Legal scholar and former Additional Solicitor General Indira Sharma expressed disappointment at the Court’s stance:
“While I respect the institutional mechanism, when criminality is suspected, especially involving public funds, the matter should not be contained within an opaque system.”
On the other hand, judicial analyst Ravi Mehrotra defended the Court’s decision, arguing that
“The judiciary is not the investigating agency. It has done what it must by submitting the inquiry to the constitutional heads. It is now a political and moral question for the executive.”
The Bar Council of India has so far remained silent on the issue, though unofficial sources suggest internal divisions on how to address what many are calling an unprecedented moment in India’s judicial history.
A Judge Under the Spotlight
Justice Yashwant Varma, known for his work in constitutional and administrative law, retired from the Delhi High Court just a year prior to the incident. Over his judicial career, he gained respect for sharp legal insight but stayed largely out of the limelight. That changed dramatically following the fire incident, which was first reported as accidental.
However, when Delhi Fire Services entered the residence, they reportedly found charred briefcases filled with cash, raising suspicions that attempts were made to destroy evidence.
No official amount has been released, but insiders hint that the sum could exceed ₹5 crore, untraceable to any declared income.
Calls for Transparency Grow Louder
Civil rights groups and former judges have called for the public release of the in-house report.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has filed a separate Right to Information (RTI) application, demanding access to the report and documentation on any subsequent communication between the judiciary and the executive.
CJAR’s spokesperson, Anjali Pathak, said:
“Judicial independence cannot mean judicial immunity from accountability. The people deserve to know if corruption is being quietly buried under institutional protocols.”
What Happens Next?
With the Supreme Court stepping aside, the onus is now on President Murmu and PM Modi to decide whether the findings warrant action under constitutional provisions, possibly including a probe by central agencies like the CBI or ED, or even parliamentary oversight under Article 124(4) relating to impeachment of judges.
While impeachment is rare—only one judge has been impeached in India’s history—it is theoretically possible if evidence justifies it.
Meanwhile, public confidence hangs in the balance as Indians watch to see whether the executive will act with urgency—or allow the matter to fade into silence.
Conclusion: A Defining Test of India’s Institutional Integrity
Today’s verdict does not close the case—it only moves it to another room. The ball now rests with India’s highest constitutional authorities, whose response may well determine how committed the nation truly is to upholding transparency within its most powerful institutions.
In a country where judges are often viewed as the last line of defense against corruption and injustice, this case presents a defining test—not just for one judge, but for the entire judicial ecosystem and the faith of a billion citizens.