The recovery of a substantial amount of unaccounted cash from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma earlier this year has triggered a series of events, bringing judicial accountability and the independence of the judiciary into sharp focus. The latest development involves a Parliamentary Committee questioning the Ministry of Law and Justice on why a First Information Report (FIR) has not yet been filed in the matter.

On March 14, 2025, a fire broke out at Justice Varma's residence in Delhi, and during the firefighting operations, authorities allegedly discovered sacks of burnt cash. Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, has consistently denied any knowledge of the money, claiming that neither he nor his staff were aware of its presence.

Following the discovery, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna took immediate cognizance of the matter. An extraordinary meeting of the Supreme Court collegium was convened, and subsequently, a three-member committee was formed to investigate the allegations. The committee, comprising Chief Justices from various High Courts, submitted its report on May 3, 2025, finding "sufficient substance" in the allegations against Justice Varma. The report highlighted "serious misconduct" and recommended initiating proceedings for his removal.

Based on the inquiry committee's findings, CJI Khanna reportedly sought Justice Varma's voluntary resignation to preserve judicial dignity and avoid the more drastic measure of impeachment. However, Justice Varma has refused to resign and maintains his innocence, alleging a conspiracy against him. He was transferred to Allahabad High Court.

The lack of an FIR in this case has raised eyebrows, particularly among members of the Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. In a meeting held on June 24, 2025, several MPs questioned the Ministry of Law and Justice about the absence of an FIR, demanding a detailed note on the matter. They also emphasized the need for a code of conduct for judges and suggested a cooling-off period of five years before justices of the higher judiciary take up government assignments post-retirement. Concerns were raised regarding the apparent disparity in treatment between a government employee, who might face immediate repercussions for corruption, and a senior member of the judiciary, against whom no FIR has been filed despite the recovery of unaccounted cash. Some MPs inquired why a motion to remove Justice Varma had not been moved, especially after the Supreme Court-appointed committee confirmed the cash recovery.

The Supreme Court had earlier rejected a petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma, stating that the in-house inquiry was ongoing and that a decision on filing an FIR could be taken after the inquiry report. The court deemed the petition "premature" at the time.

The absence of an FIR raises several questions. Typically, the discovery of a large amount of unaccounted cash would trigger a police investigation to determine the source of the funds and whether any illegal activities were involved. The fact that Justice Varma has not filed a police complaint, despite alleging a conspiracy, has also been noted by the inquiry panel as "unnatural". The panel also found it odd that Justice Varma and his wife did not visit the storeroom after the fire, raising further suspicion.

The inquiry committee's report has brought to light other aspects that cast a shadow on Justice Varma's conduct. For instance, CCTV cameras monitoring the storeroom were not working, and Justice Varma claimed he was unaware of the reason. The committee also noted that Justice Varma communicated with his staff primarily through WhatsApp on the night of the incident, and these communications could not be retrieved due to encryption.

Given the seriousness of the allegations, the findings of the inquiry committee, and the ongoing questions surrounding the source and nature of the recovered cash, the pressure is mounting on the relevant authorities to take decisive action. The Parliamentary Committee's intervention underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary and ensuring accountability at all levels. The Ministry of Law and Justice has been directed to prepare a comprehensive report on the issues raised, and the next steps in this unfolding saga will be closely watched. The incident may potentially lead to an impeachment motion in Parliament.