Public Outrage Grows Across the Country for no FIR against Justice Varma ; Legal Fraternity Questions: If the Supreme Court Could Take Suo Motu Cognizance Over the Use of the Word “Corruption” in an NCERT Textbook, Why Has It Remained Silent in a Case Involving Serious Allegations? Legal Experts Ask: Was Suo Motu Intervention not Necessary to Protect the Dignity and Credibility of the Judiciary?
New Delhi, July 27: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 269 of 2026 on 28 July 2026 before a Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta. The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Advocate Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay, seeking directions for registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and constitution of a Court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) in connection with the matter relating to former Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who subsequently resigned after the constitutional process for his removal had commenced.
According to the petition, despite a detailed complaint submitted by the petitioner on 2 June 2026 to the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), no FIR has been registered till date. The petitioner contends that the complaint disclosed commission of cognizable offences and that the authorities have failed to initiate the mandatory criminal process envisaged under law.
Petition Relies on Public-Domain Material
The writ petition states that it is founded upon material already available in the public domain, including official press releases issued by the Supreme Court of India, documents relating to the in-house inquiry, photographs and video material placed in the public domain, and the petitioner’s own complaint submitted to investigating agencies. The petitioner specifically asserts that the proceedings are not intended to seek a declaration of guilt but merely to ensure that the ordinary criminal law is set in motion through registration of an FIR followed by an independent investigation.
The petition traces the background to the incident of 14 March 2025, when a fire reportedly broke out at the official residence then occupied by Justice Yashwant Varma at Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi. It refers to publicly reported allegations regarding the recovery of burnt and partially burnt currency notes during the firefighting operation and subsequent official developments, including constitution of a three-member in-house inquiry committee by the Supreme Court.
Resignation Does Not End Criminal Liability, Says Petition
One of the central submissions made in the petition is that resignation from constitutional office cannot extinguish or erase criminal liability, if any cognizable offences are disclosed by available material.
The petitioner argues that while an in-house inquiry and impeachment proceedings are institutional mechanisms dealing with continuation in judicial office, they cannot substitute the ordinary criminal justice process where cognizable offences appear to have been committed. According to the petition, criminal investigation serves an entirely different purpose, namely determining whether offences have been committed, identifying all persons involved, tracing financial transactions, examining destruction of evidence and fixing criminal responsibility wherever warranted.
Reliance on Constitutional Principles and Supreme Court Precedents
The petition places considerable reliance upon Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, contending that equality before law requires that every individual, irrespective of constitutional status, be subjected to the same criminal process whenever information disclosing cognizable offences comes to light.
It further relies upon several Supreme Court judgments, including Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, Vineet Narain v. Union of India, Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, Pooja Pal, Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh, Rajendra Singh Verma, R.C. Chandel, Tarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu, and other decisions dealing with mandatory registration of FIRs, judicial accountability, anti-corruption jurisprudence and Court-monitored investigations.
According to the petitioner, these authorities collectively establish that registration of an FIR is the first statutory step whenever information discloses a cognizable offence and that investigation—not refusal to investigate—is the lawful mechanism through which truth is ultimately determined.
Demand for Independent SIT
Besides seeking registration of an FIR, the petition requests constitution of an independent Special Investigation Team headed by a senior CBI officer with assistance from officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax Department, Delhi Police and forensic experts.
The proposed investigation, according to the petition, should extend beyond the immediate issue of possession of cash and should examine its source, movement, alleged removal, financial trail, electronic evidence, CCTV footage, call records, digital devices, possible destruction of evidence, involvement of any intermediaries or public servants, and any larger conspiracy or corruption network, if disclosed during investigation. The petitioner has also sought preservation of all electronic, financial and documentary evidence and periodical status reports before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner Describes Objective as Protection of Judicial Credibility
The petition repeatedly states that it has not been filed to scandalise the judiciary or undermine judicial independence. Instead, it asserts that public confidence in the institution is best preserved through transparency and impartial investigation wherever serious allegations arise.
According to the petition, judicial independence and judicial accountability are complementary constitutional principles and not competing values. It argues that an independent investigation would strengthen rather than weaken public faith in the administration of justice.
About the Petitioner
Advocate Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay, the petitioner, is a practising advocate before the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court of India and is widely known for his continuous and persistent efforts towards judicial accountability, police reforms, constitutional governance and institutional reforms. Over the years, he has filed and pursued numerous public interest litigations concerning judicial accountability, transparency in public administration, the rule of law and strengthening constitutional institutions.
One of the most notable public interest litigations associated with him was the case seeking criminal action against the then Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh. Following judicial intervention in that matter, Deshmukh resigned from the office of Home Minister, after which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR and subsequently arrested him during the course of its investigation.
Advocate Upadhyay has also instituted several proceedings involving members of the higher judiciary whenever, in his assessment, questions relating to constitutional governance, judicial accountability or issues of significant public importance warranted judicial scrutiny. He has consistently maintained that judicial independence and judicial accountability are complementary constitutional principles and that public confidence in the justice delivery system is strengthened when allegations are examined through due process of law.
Apart from his independent public interest litigation, Advocate Upadhyay has appeared in several significant constitutional and contempt proceedings representing the Indian Bar Association (IBA) and Advocate Nilesh C. Ojha, particularly in matters concerning judicial reforms, contempt jurisdiction, freedom of speech, procedural safeguards and institutional accountability. His arguments in such matters have consistently centred on adherence to constitutional principles, statutory safeguards and the rule of law.
Over the years, he has earned a reputation among sections of the legal fraternity, public-interest activists and members of civil society as a fearless advocate who has consistently invoked constitutional remedies in matters involving public accountability, judicial reforms and institutional integrity.