Archive · 21 Sep 2026
Delhi High Court Rejects FIR Plea Over Justice Varma Cash
A lawyer asked the Delhi High Court to order an investigation into cash reportedly found at a judge’s home after a fire.
He wanted police to register a case and asked the CBI or a special team to investigate.
Justice Amit Bansal said the lawyer could use other legal options instead.
The judge called the petition a “wild witch hunt” and refused to hear it.
The lawyer then withdrew the petition so he could consider those other options.
A similar request had already been rejected by the Supreme Court.
The court’s decision did not decide whether the cash allegation was true or false.
The reports also give different dates for some later inquiry and resignation events.
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain advocate Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay’s plea seeking an FIR and a CBI or SIT investigation.
Justice Amit Bansal called the petition a “wild witch hunt” and questioned Upadhyay’s legal standing and available remedies.
The alleged cash was reportedly found at an outhouse or storeroom of Justice Yashwant Varma’s official Delhi residence after a fire in March 2025.
Upadhyay argued that the matter was extraordinary and sought an independent investigation into the currency’s source, ownership, custody and disappearance.
The Supreme Court had dismissed a similar petition in August, while the articles report differing dates for later proceedings involving Justice Varma.
- Who
- Advocate Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay filed the plea; Justice Amit Bansal heard it; the allegations concerned former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma.
- What
- The Delhi High Court declined to entertain a request for an FIR and a CBI or SIT investigation into alleged cash found at Varma’s residence.
- When
- The fire was reported during the night of March 14-15, 2025; the High Court considered the plea on a Monday, while the Supreme Court had dismissed a similar plea in August.
- Where
- The alleged cash was reportedly found at an outhouse or storeroom of Yashwant Varma’s official residence at 30, Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi.
- Why
- Upadhyay sought an independent investigation into the alleged currency, including its source, ownership, custody, disappearance and the handling of evidence.
Petitioner’s Position
Court and Government Response
Whether an investigation should be ordered
Petitioner’s Position
Upadhyay sought an FIR and an independent CBI or SIT investigation, arguing that the circumstances were extraordinary and that ordinary legal channels could not adequately address the allegations.
Court and Government Response
The High Court said alternative remedies were available, including approaching the Delhi Police and then the competent magistrate, and declined to order the requested investigation directly.
Whether the petition could be pursued by Upadhyay
Petitioner’s Position
Upadhyay argued that anyone could set criminal law in motion and that his petition sought fact-finding rather than a declaration that Justice Varma was guilty.
Court and Government Response
Justice Amit Bansal questioned Upadhyay’s locus and called the petition a “wild witch hunt.” Counsel for the Union of India and the CBI also argued that Upadhyay lacked locus and had previously approached the Supreme Court.
Scope of the High Court decision
Petitioner’s Position
Upadhyay said the allegations involved the source, ownership, custody and disappearance of currency and possible failures to preserve evidence.
Court and Government Response
The High Court did not examine Justice Varma’s guilt or innocence; it ruled only that it would not entertain the plea in that form.
- High Court action
- The Delhi High Court refused to entertain the plea; Upadhyay withdrew it with permission to pursue alternative legal remedies.
- Petitioner
- Advocate Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay
- Judge hearing the plea
- Justice Amit Bansal
- Investigation sought
- Registration of an FIR and investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team
- Reported incident
- A fire at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official Delhi residence was followed by the alleged discovery of burnt or partially burnt currency.
- Earlier Supreme Court action
- The Supreme Court dismissed a similar petition by Upadhyay in August; one article says it described the plea as appearing aimed at “cheap publicity.”
- Reported timeline discrepancy
- The articles identify the fire as occurring in March 2025 but differ on dates for later resignation, retirement and statutory inquiry events.
