Cash-at-home row: Centre confirms transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma to Allahabad high court | India News

File photo Justice Yashwant Varma

NEW DELHI: The government on Friday notified the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi high court to the Allahabad high court amid the probe over the alleged discovery of cash at his official residence.
“In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased to transfer Shri Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge, Delhi high court, to be a Judge of Allahabad High Court and to direct him to assume charge of his office in the Allahabad high court,” the order said.

The Supreme Court Collegium had earlier recommended his repatriation to his parent high court following the development.
Justice Varma was de-rostered by the Delhi high court after a directive from the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The controversy arose after a fire at his Lutyens Delhi residence on March 14, following which reports emerged of burnt wads of cash allegedly found in a storeroom. Justice Varma strongly denied the claims, stating that neither he nor his family had placed any cash there.
The Supreme Court appointed a three-member in-house committee on March 22 to investigate the matter, with Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya’s report, including photos and videos, uploaded on the court’s website. Meanwhile, a PIL seeking an FIR into the matter was dismissed as premature, with the court stating that the in-house inquiry was ongoing and multiple options remained open to the CJI once it concluded.
SC declines to entertain PIL to register FIR
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the registration of an FIR regarding the alleged recovery of cash. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan saidthat the issues raised by advocate Mathews Nedumpara were premature, as an in-house inquiry is already underway. The bench explained that after the inquiry report is submitted, several options, including directing the registration of an FIR or referring the matter to Parliament, would be considered.
The Supreme Court refused to intervene while the in-house inquiry is ongoing. In its order, the bench noted that the inquiry is underway, and only after the committee submits its report will the Chief Justice have several options, including directing further action.
Advocate Nedumpara had argued that an FIR should have been registered and questioned why no arrests were made. The petition also challenged a previous Supreme Court ruling in the K Veeraswami case, which requires prior consultation with the Chief Justice before filing a criminal case against a sitting judge.