NEW DELHI: Bombay Lawyers Association has written to Chief Justice of India B R Gavai seeking sanction to prosecute high court judge Yashwant Varma over the discovery of huge cash from his official residence when he was in Delhi.

The judge was transferred to Allahabad High Court amidst the raging controversy.

Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna had recently written to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, besides sharing with them the report of the apex court-appointed committee reportedly indicting Varma and the judge's response.

Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) in its letter dated June 2 and signed by president Ahmad M Abdi and secretary Eknath R Dhokale sought the sanction to prosecute the judge besides referring to the top court rejecting a PIL on the issue on May 21.

The top court called it "premature" and dismissed the PIL seeking an FIR over the matter and asked the petitioners to approach appropriate authorities instead.

The lawyers' body said, "It needs to be kept in mind that litigants and other lay persons are active stakeholders in the legal process. The applicant is seeking your sanction to initiate criminal prosecution, including the registration of an FIR, against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court, under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence." The letter referred to the apex court's landmark ruling in K Veeraswami case of 1991 which mandates that no criminal case be registered against a sitting judge of the high court or Supreme Court without the CJI's prior approval.

The 1991 judgement, the letter went on to say, held that judges of the high courts and Supreme Court are "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and liable for prosecution for offenses such as possession of disproportionate assets.

The judgment further clarified that President was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but such sanction must be based on the advice of the CJI, it added.

"The allegations, supported by photographic and video evidence shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner, have raised serious concerns about judicial probity and public trust in the judiciary. The failure to register an FIR, despite the inquiry committee's findings, risks undermining the principle of equality before the law and the credibility of the judicial institution," it said.

The letter, aside from seeking sanction to prosecute the judge, sought a direction to authorities, including Delhi Police or the CBI to preserve all relevant evidence, including the partially burnt currency notes, photographs, and video recordings.

The bar body also sought a copy of the in-house inquiry committee report to enable it to file the complaint.

The SC-appointed panel analysed the evidence and recorded the statements of more than 50 people, including Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora and the Delhi Fire Services chief, who were among the first responders to the fire incident at Justice Varma's official Lutyens' Delhi residence at around 11.35 pm on March 14.

Justice Varma was then a judge in the Delhi High Court and repeatedly denied the allegations in his responses to the Delhi High Court chief justice and the panel.

The in-house procedure entails the CJI writing to the president and the prime minister for impeachment after the advice to the judge to resign is not complied with.

"Chief Justice of India, in terms of the in-house procedure, has written to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India, enclosing therewith copy of the three-member committee report dated May 3 along with the letter/response dated May 6 received from Justice Yashwant Varma," the apex court said on May 8.

The committee confirmed the cash-discovery allegations against Justice Varma in its inquiry report, the sources previously said.

The three-member panel comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court. The report was finalised on May 3.

Sources also said former CJI Khanna had nudged Justice Varma to step down in view of the findings in the report forwarded to the judge for his response, in line with the principle of natural justice.

The controversy led to several steps, including a preliminary inquiry by Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, judicial work being taken away from Justice Varma in the Delhi High Court and later, his transfer to the Allahabad High Court sans judicial work.

On March 24, the apex court collegium recommended the repatriation of Justice Varma to his parent, Allahabad High Court.

On March 28, the top court asked the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma.