The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking registration of an FIR and a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the controversial “burnt cash” incident involving former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe refused to entertain the plea filed by lawyer Ghanshyam Upadhayay, observing that it appeared to have been filed for “cheap publicity.”

“All cheap publicity. We are not inclined to entertain this. Dismissed,” the Bench said.

The petitioner argued that Justice Varma’s resignation did not wipe out any potential criminal liability arising from the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence.

Upadhayay also told the Court that an earlier petition had been dismissed on a technical ground as no prior complaint had been filed. He submitted that a complaint had now been made and there was no legal immunity preventing prosecution of Justice Varma.

“Earlier similar petition was dismissed on technical ground that no complaint was filed before filing the petition. That is done now. A judge of the High Court has been held to be a public servant. Now he is retired also. There is no immunity from prosecution,” the petitioner argued.

The controversy began after a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence on the evening of March 14. Reports of unaccounted cash allegedly being recovered from the premises emerged soon after, while a video purportedly showing bundles of cash burning in the fire also surfaced.

At the time of the incident, Justice Varma and his wife were reportedly in Madhya Pradesh. His daughter and elderly mother were present at the residence when the fire broke out.

Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing and alleged that the incident was part of a conspiracy to implicate him.

Following the allegations, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry and constituted a three-member committee on March 22. The committee comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman.

The committee began its proceedings on March 25 and submitted its report to the CJI on May 4.

After considering the report, CJI Khanna asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. Justice Varma chose not to resign at that stage, following which the report and his response were forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister for further action.

Meanwhile, Justice Varma was transferred back to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court and was divested of judicial work pending further proceedings.

In August 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla initiated the process for Justice Varma’s removal by constituting a three-member inquiry committee.

The committee initially comprised Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, then Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and senior advocate BV Acharya. Following Justice Shrivastava’s retirement, Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar was appointed in his place.

In January this year, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the parliamentary inquiry against Justice Varma, holding that the Lok Sabha Speaker was empowered to constitute the Judges Inquiry Committee.

Justice Varma ultimately resigned from office in April this year, before the removal proceedings could be completed.

The Supreme Court’s latest order now brings a fresh judicial refusal to entertain a plea seeking criminal proceedings over the controversial cash recovery allegations.