Delhi HC To Hear Afresh 52 Pending Cases Listed Previously Before Justice Yashwant Varma

Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued a notice announcing that 52 pending cases—previously listed before a Division Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar—will now be heard afresh by the current roster bench.

These cases had hearing dates assigned, but no orders were recorded.

What Court State?

“It is hereby notified for the information of all concerned that the following matters, previously listed before the Division Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, in which a next hearing date had been assigned but no orders were drawn, shall be re-listed and heard afresh before the roster bench.”

Justice Varma’s Transfer Amid Controversy

The notice comes shortly after the controversial transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma to the Allahabad High Court. His relocation has sparked widespread debate, following reports of an investigation into an alleged incident involving semi-burnt sacks of cash discovered at his residence.

The cash was reportedly found after a fire broke out at his home on March 14. The matter quickly escalated, prompting the Supreme Court to initiate an internal inquiry. Although a report was submitted, the court chose to withhold the findings, citing the sensitive nature of the issue. Both public and parliamentary access to the report remains restricted.

Adding to the speculation, Justice Varma’s swearing-in ceremony in Allahabad was held privately, deviating from the usual public proceedings—a move that has raised further questions.

Before his transfer, Justice Varma served in the Delhi High Court, where he was known for presiding over important matters involving constitutional, commercial, and corporate law. His reputation as a key member of the judiciary made the circumstances surrounding his transfer even more notable.

Meanwhile, the court has constituted a three-judge panel to investigate the incident involving the alleged cash recovery. As the inquiry progresses, the judiciary has opted for discretion, keeping both the findings and further developments out of the public domain for now.