The Supreme Court Collegium has ordered the transfer of Delhi High Court’s Justice Yashwant Varma after a fire at his residence led to the discovery of a substantial amount of cash. The incident has raised serious concerns about judicial accountability, with deliberations on whether a transfer suffices or if further action is warranted.
A fire incident occurred at the residential bungalow of Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court, in his absence. His family members promptly called the fire brigade and the police. After the fire was extinguished, emergency responders discovered a large sum of cash in one of the rooms, leading to an official entry being made regarding the recovery. Upon being informed, senior police officials escalated the matter to higher authorities, eventually bringing it to the attention of the Chief Justice of India.
While there has been no formal statement from Justice Varma regarding the origin of the recovered cash, members of the Supreme Court Collegium deliberated on the gravity of the matter. Some members were of the view that a mere transfer to another High Court would not suffice in addressing the seriousness of the issue. They contended that allowing a judge to continue in office despite such an incident could tarnish the judiciary’s reputation and diminish public confidence in the institution.
The Collegium unanimously decided that immediate action was necessary to prevent further speculation and damage to the judiciary’s credibility. It was observed that the presence of a substantial amount of cash at the residence of a sitting High Court judge required further scrutiny, given the potential implications on judicial probity.
Judicial officers are expected to uphold the highest standards of ethics and accountability, as public trust in the judiciary is paramount to the administration of justice. As per the in-house procedure established by the Supreme Court in 1999, when allegations of misconduct arise against a constitutional court judge, the Chief Justice of India is required to seek a response from the concerned judge. If the response is deemed unsatisfactory or if the allegations warrant further examination, an in-house inquiry panel comprising a Supreme Court judge and two Chief Justices of High Courts may be constituted.
Several members of the Collegium opined that the judge should be asked to resign voluntarily, failing which an in-house inquiry should be initiated as the first step toward potential removal by Parliament.
The Collegium resolved to transfer Justice Varma to his parent High Court, Allahabad, where he was originally elevated from in October 2021. While the need for immediate transfer was undisputed, members differed on further disciplinary action. Some deemed the transfer sufficient, while others stressed the need for a formal inquiry to uphold judicial accountability. The incident has reignited debates on stricter oversight for judicial conduct and the effectiveness of the in-house procedure in addressing misconduct allegations
Picture Source :
